History of California (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 4

CHAPTER IV.

ECHEANDÍA AND THE PADRES MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.

1826–1830.

MISSION PREFECT AND PRESIDENTS THE QUESTION OF SUPPLIES THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE SARRIA S ARREST FRIARS STILL MASTERS OF THE SITUATION COUNCIL AT SAN DIEGO SOUTHERN PADRES WILLING—NORTHERN PADRES REFUSE FLIGHT OF RIPOLL AND ALTIMIRA THE FRIARS AS SPANIARDS ECHEANDIA S CONCILIATORY POLICY PETITIONS OF THE PEOPLE EXILE OF MARTINEZ PROGRESS TOWARDS SECULARIZATION MEXICAN POLICY DIFFICULTIES JUNTA OF APRIL 1826 DECREE OF JULY EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM MISSION SCHOOLS AND LANDS PLAN OF 1829-30 APPROVAL OF THE DIPUTACION ACTION IN MEXICO INDIAN AFFAIRS SANCHEZ S EXPEDITION VALLEJO S CAMPAIGN AGAINST ESTANISLAO NORTHERN FORT SEASONS.

VICENTE FRANCISCO DE SARRIA retained the position of comisario prefecto of the missions, and was not disturbed in the performance of his official duties from 1826 to 1830, though nominally in a state of arrest as a recalcitrant Spaniard. Narciso Duran retained the presidency until September 1827 when he was succeeded by Jose Bernardo Sanchez. The latter retained possession of the office until 1831, though Duran was re-elected in May 1830.^[1]

The old controversy between government and friars respecting supplies for the troops continued of course during these five years, but with no novel aspects. In addition to commercial imposts, a secular tithe of all 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 from each mission the largest possible amount of supplies for escoltas and presidial garrisons, and at the end of each year to give credit on account for the excess of amounts thus furnished over the taxes. I find no evidence that any part of the balance was paid in any instance.^[3] The padres gave less willingly than in former years, when there had been yet a hope of Spanish supremacy, but the quarrels in local and individual cases were much less frequent than might naturally be expected, or at least such controversies have left little trace in the records.^[4]

Meanwhile the missions got nothing from the pious fund through the Mexican treasury, in addition to the stipends of 1819-22, the payment of which has already been noted. It is not certain even that any of the latter amount, about $24,000, ever came to California, but probably some cargoes of mission goods were paid for by the síndico at Tepic out of that sum. Only fragments of the mission accounts have been preserved for these years.^[5]

We have seen that the padres as a rule refused to take the oath of obedience to the constitution of 1824, or to solemnize by religious exercises any act of the republican government; and that Prefect Sarría had been put under arrest, though it had not been deemed wise to carry into effect the orders requiring the reverend prisoner to be sent by the first ship to Mexico. In fact, the friars were yet, in a great measure, masters of the situation, because they could keep the neophytes in subjection, and above all make them work. The great fear was that the missionaries would leave the territory en masse if too hard pressed. Had the situation of affairs, from a financial and military point of view, been more reassuring, the territorial authorities would not have been averse to assuming entire and immediate charge of all the missions; while the people, for the most part, would have rejoiced at the prospect of getting new lands and new laborers. But as matters stood, the rulers and leading citizens understood that any radical and sudden change, effected without the aid of the friars, would ruin the territory by cutting off its chief resources, and exposing its people to the raids of hostile Indians. Thus a conciliatory policy was necessary, not only to the government, but to the friars themselves. The latter, though they knew their power and often threatened to go, were old men, attached to their mission homes, with but a cheerless prospect for life in Spain, fully determined to spend the rest of their days in California if possible.

Sarría's condition of nominal suspension and arrest continued for five years or more. Once, in 1826, his passport was made out, and he went so far as to call upon his associates for prayers to sustain him on his voyage. There was no countermanding of the orders, but a repetition of them in November 1827, yet the padre remained. He seems to have been included with the rest in the proceedings against the friars as Spaniards, and the special orders in his case were allowed to be forgotten,^[6] though as late as the middle of 1828 the governor still pretended to be waiting for a vessel on which to send him away.

On the 28th of April, 1826, Echeandía with Zamorano as secretary and the alcalde of Los Angeles met padres Sanchez, Zalvidea, Peyri, and Martin at San Diego to take counsel respecting the taking of the constitutional oath by the friars. The representatives of the latter said there was no objection to the oath except that it compelled them to take up arms, or use their influence in favor of taking up arms, for differences of political opinion. They would take the oath with the supplement "So far as may be compatible with our religion and profession;" but Echeandía would not agree to any change in the formula, and directed that a circular be sent out requiring each padre to explain his views on the subject.^[7] June 3d the circular was issued through the comandantes to the friars; but it was not so much a call for views and arguments as for a formal decision in writing whether each would take the oath or not.^[8] The answers of the five padres of the San Diego district were sent in on the 14th. Padre Peyri was willing to take the oath, and was enthusiastic in his devotion to the national cause. Martin had already sworn, and did not approve of taking two oaths on the same subject. The rest were ready to take the oath in the manner indicated at the junta of April 28th; that is, to be republicans so far as was compatible with their profession and so long as they might remain in California. Replies from the Monterey jurisdiction, sent in on July 7th, were to the effect that the friars could not take the oath, and were ready to endure the penalty, though some of them promised fidelity and respect to the constituted authorities. The response from San Francisco and Santa Bárbara is not so far as I know extant.^[9]

There was no further agitation of this matter during the year, though a warning was received from the comisario general against the disaffected friars, and especially against the president, who, as the writer had heard, talked of nothing but his religion and his king, protesting his willingness to die for either. "If this be true, it would be well to grant him a passport to go and kiss his king's hand, but to go with only bag and staff, as required by the rules of his order." I am not certain whether this referred to Duran or Sarría.^[10]

During 1827 politico-missionary matters remained nearly in statu quo. No disposition was shown to disturb the padres further on account of their opposition to the republic, though there were rumors afloat that some of them were preparing to run away. Martinez, Ripoll, and Juan Cabot were those named in June as having such intentions, and Vicente Cané gave evidence on the mysterious shipment of $6,000 in gold on the Santa Apolonia by Padre Martinez, an act supposed to have some connection with the plans for flight. Captain Gonzalez took a prominent part in the charges, and this was perhaps a reason why Echeandía and others paid very little attention to the subject.^[11]

The rumors had some foundation, for at the end of December, or perhaps in January 1828, padres Ripoll and Altimira went on board the American brig Harbinger, Captain Steele, at Santa Bárbara, and left California never to return. They went on board the vessel on pretence of examining certain goods, and such effects as they wished to carry with them were embarked by stealth. Echeandía was there at the time, and David Spence tells us he was for some mysterious purpose invited to take breakfast on the brig before she sailed, but was prevented by other affairs from accepting.^[12] Orders were at once issued to seize the Harbinger should she dare to enter any other port; but Steele chose to run no risks. The fugitives left letters in which they gave as their reason for a clandestine departure the fear that their going might be prevented otherwise, prompt action being necessary for reasons not stated. They were among the youngest of the Franciscan band, and in several respects less identified than most others with the missionary work in California, the reader being already familiar with certain eccentricities on the part of each. Their destination was Spain, which they seem to have reached in safety. A suspicion was natural that the two padres carried away with them something more than the sack and staff of their order, that they took enough of the mission treasure to insure a comfortable voyage, and perhaps future comforts across the sea. The truth can never be known. An investigation brought to light nothing more suspicious than the transfer of certain barrels and boxes of wine, soap, and olives, with perhaps other packages of unknown contents, from San Buenaventura to Santa Bárbara.^[13] In their own letters, the padres said they had left the mission property intact. Duhaut-Cilly, however, had lately sold Ripoll an English draft for 7,000 francs,^[14] which he said came to him legitimately from his stipend. Though Alvarado and Vallejo accuse the padres of having stolen large sums, and their method of flight favored the suspicion, I suppose that a few thousand dollars was 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 invested in supplies for the Indians.^[15]

In reporting the flight of Ripoll and Altimira, Echeandía suggested the expediency of granting passports to those who had asked for them, with a view to avoid such scandals; and he did send a pass to Padre Martinez in September to prevent the disgrace of his intended flight.^[16] There was also a scandal respecting the actions of President Sanchez, whose letters and some goods being conveyed by John Lawlor from San Gabriel to the sea-shore were stopped and searched by Alcalde Carrillo of Los Angeles, on suspicion of complicity in smuggling. Sanchez was indignant at what he deemed an insult, and demanded his passport; but Echeandía, by declaring the suspicions unfounded, and by conciliatory methods, succeeded in calming the worthy president's wrath.^[17]

The law of 1827 on the expulsion of Spaniards from Mexican territory,^[18] reaching California in 1828, had no other effect on the status of the missionaries than to give them another safe opportunity to demand their passports, as many of them did, some perhaps really desiring to depart. There was no disposition to enforce the decree, for reasons known to the reader.^[19] Meanwhile the Spanish friars had been actually expelled from Mexico, and a most disheartening report came respecting the state of affairs at the college of San Fernando.^[20]

There would seem to have been some complaint against Echeandía for not having enforced the law of 1827, for in June 1829, apparently before the arrival of the law of March 20th, he sent to Mexico a list of the padres, with notes on the circumstances of each,^[21] and a defence of his action, or failure to act, on the ground that all the padres except three were Spaniards, and it would have been absurdly impossible to expel them with nobody to take their place. He also urged that many of them be allowed to remain permanently in the territory. Only a few days later there came the law of March 20th, much more strict than the other, and it was circulated on the 6th of July. The announcement was that to all padres who had refused to take the oath passports would be given forth with, while all the rest must show within a month the physical impediments preventing their departure as required by the law.^[22] As before, no friar was expelled, and Echeandía had no idea of granting passports, though several, including Peyri, Sanchez, and Boscana, now demanded them, and though the governor really desired to get rid of certain unmanageable ones as soon as he could obtain others to take their places.^[23] Not only did he send to Mexico a defence of his policy of inaction, showing the impossibility of the expulsion so far as California was concerned; but the ayuntamientos of San José, Monterey, and perhaps other places, sent strong petitions on the evils that must result from such expulsion, expressing for the missionaries the deepest love and veneration, and pleading 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 orders of later date on the subject, which, except in certain particulars to be noted in the next paragraph, seems to have been now allowed to rest. One of the Spanish friars, however, received before the end of 1829 a passport to a land where it is to be hoped his political troubles were at an end. This was the aged and infirm Padre Jaime, who died at Santa Bárbara.

I have said that Echeandía deemed it desirable to get rid of certain padres. Personal feeling was his motive in part; moreover, it was important to remove certain obstacles likely to interfere with his policy of secularization, of which more hereafter. Prejudice against all that was Spanish was the strongest feeling in Mexico, and there was no better way for the governor to keep himself in good standing with the power that appointed him than to go with the current. It also favored Echeandía's plans respecting his enemy Herrera, while increasing the importance of his own services, to show the existence of a strong revolutionary spirit in favor of Spain. There was, however, but a slight foundation on which to build. The padres were Spaniards, and as a rule disapproved the new form of government; but it is not likely that any of them had a definite hope of overthrowing the republic, or of restoring California to the old system, and the most serious charge that could be justly brought against them was an occasional injudicious use of the tongue. Generally the prevalent rumors of treason could be traced to nothing reliable.^[25]

Of all the padres, Martinez of San Luis Obispo was the most outspoken and independent in political matters, besides being well known for his smuggling propensities. Echeandía deemed his absence desirable for the quiet of the territory, and had issued a passport which had not been used. It was thought best on general principles to make an example; it was particularly desirable to give a political significance to the Solis revolt, and Padre Martinez was banished on a charge of complicity in that revolt in the interest of Spain. The evidence against him was not very strong;^[26] but there was little risk, since as a Spaniard the accused night at any time be legally exiled. He was arrested early in February 1830, and confined in a room of the comandancia at Santa Bárbara. In his testimony he denied all the allegations against him, except that of giving food to the soldiers, as others had also done and as it was customary for the missionaries to do, whoever their guests might be. He claimed to have tried to dissuade Solis from his foolish scheme of raising the Spanish flag. In a long and eloquent communication addressed to Echeandía, protesting against the manner of his treatment, Martinez, while not attempting to deny his well known political sentiments, claimed that he was not such a fool as to suppose that Spain could be benefited by petty revolts in California, that he desired the welfare of the territory, and that in his opinion it could not be advantageously separated from Mexico. The two padres Cabot testified to having seen letters in which Martinez declined to take part in the political schemes of Solis, declaring that if the king wished to conquistar any part of America, he might do it himself, in his own way. Prefect Sarría also presented an argument to prove Martinez innocent.^[27]

The 9th of March a junta de guerra, composed of six officers, besides the governor, met at Santa Bárbara to decide on the friar's fate. Echeandía explained, at considerable length, the difficulties in the way of administering a suitable penalty, and he seems to have counselled leniency, fearing or pretending to fear the action of the other padres; but after full discussion, it was decided by a vote of five to one to send him out of Mexican territory by the first available vessel.^[28] Stephen Anderson, owner of the English brig Thomas Nowlan, was called in immediately, and gave bonds to carry the prisoner to Callao, and put him on board a vessel bound for Europe. Padre Martinez, on the same day, promised in verbo sacerdotis not to land at Manila or the Sandwich Islands, and on March 20th the Nowlan sailed.^[29] The friar reached Callao in June, and subsequently arrived safely in Madrid, whence he wrote to his friends in California. There were those who believed that he carried away a large amount of money, an exploit which, if actually accomplished, considering the circumstances of his departure, surpassed in brilliancy all his previous deeds as a contrabandista.^[30] Even if, as 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 provision for future comfort.

The most important problem affecting the missions was that of secularization; but it hardly assumed a controversial aspect during this period. The missions, as the reader is well aware, had never been intended as permanent institutions, but only as temporary schools to fit savage gentiles for Christian citizenship. The missionaries themselves never denied this in theory, but practically nullified the principle, and claimed perpetuity for their establishments by always affirming, no matter whether the spiritual conquest dated back five or fifty years, that the Indians were not yet fitted to become citizens. This was, moreover, always true, even if it was a virtual confession that the mission system was a failure, and it presented serious difficulties in the way of secularization. The córtes of Spain had decreed, however, in 1813, that all missions ten years after foundation must be changed into pueblos, subject to secular authority both in civil and religious affairs,^[31] and the success of independence made the change inevitable. The spirit of Mexican republicanism was not favorable to the longer existence of the old missions under a system of land monopoly strongly tinged with some phases of human slavery. If the Indians were not fit for citizenship, neither were they being fitted therefor.

Echeandía and the administration that appointed him desired to secularize the missions, but understood that it was a problem requiring careful study. Neither party was disposed to act hastily in the matter: the Mexican authorities largely perhaps because of indifference to the interests of a territory so far away; and the governor by reason not only of his natural tendency to inaction, but of the difficulties with which on arrival he found himself surrounded. These difficulties, as the reader has learned, were insurmountable. Had the territorial finances been in a sound condition, had the military force been thoroughly organized and promptly paid, had there been fifty curates at hand to take charge of new parishes, had the territory been to some extent independent of the missions — even with these favorable conditions, none of which existed, secularization would have been a difficult task if not a risky experiment, requiring for success at least the hearty coöperation of the friars. Under existing circumstances, however, which need not be recapitulated here, against the will of the padres, who, with their influence over the neophytes and their threats to retire en masse, were largely masters of the situation, any radical change in the mission status would bring ruin to the territory.

The governor recognized the impossibility of immediate action; but in accordance with the policy of his government,^[32] with his own republican theories, with the spirit rapidly evolved from controversies with the friars on other points, and with the urgings of some prominent Californians who already had their eyes on the mission lands, he had to keep the matter alive by certain experiments intended to test the feelings and capabilities of the neophytes.^[33] On April 28, 1826, Echeandía and his secretary, Zamorano, held a consultation with padres Sanchez, Zalvidea, Peyri, and Martin at San Diego, at which after the padres had expressed their willingness to surrender the temporal management, the governor made a speech on the importance of providing for the Indians of San Diego and Santa Bárbara who desired to leave the neofía and manage for themselves. After discussion, it was agreed that those of good conduct and long service might be released, to form a pueblo at San Fernando or San Luis, under regulations to be fixed by the governor.^[34]

After later consultations not definitely recorded, at which the plan was considerably modified, Echeandía issued, July 25th, a decree, or proclamation, of partial emancipation in favor of the neophytes. By its terms those desiring to leave the missions might do so, provided they had been Christians from childhood, or for fifteen years, were married, or at least not minors, and had some means of gaining a livelihood. The Indians must apply to the presidial comandante, who after obtaining a report from the padre was to issue through the latter a written permit entitling the neophyte and his family to go wherever they pleased, like other Mexican citizens, their names being erased from the mission registers. The cases of absentees were to be investigated by the comandantes at once, and those not entitled to the license were to be restored to their respective missions. At the same time the padres were to be restricted in the matter of punishments to the 'mere correction' allowed to natural fathers in the case of their children; unmarried males of minor age only could be flogged, with a limit of fifteen blows per week; and faults requiring more severe penalties must be referred to the military authorities.^[35] The provisions of this order applied only to the districts of San Diego, Santa Bárbara, and Monterey; though in 1828 it was extended to that of San Francisco, excepting the frontier missions of San Rafael and San Francisco Solano.^[36]

This order of 1826 was the only secularization measure which Echeandía attempted to put in actual operation before the end of 1830. It does not appear that the missionaries made any special opposition, and the reasons of their concurrence are obvious. First, very few neophytes could comply with the conditions, especially that requiring visible means of support. Second, the decree required fugitives not entitled to license to be returned to their missions by the military, a duty that of late years had been much neglected. And third, and chiefly, experimental or partial secularization was deemed by the friars to be in their own interest, since they had no fears that the neophytes would prove themselves capable of self-government. Respecting the result, we have no satisfactory information. I find no record of the number of 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 the governor was induced by the padres to modify his plans, and to try experiments with a few neophytes, who, as might have been expected, fell soon into excesses, gambled away all their property, and were compelled to beg or steal.^[37]

While the governor doubtless used his influence to imbue the neophytes with ideas of independence and civil liberty, not conducive to contentment with mission life,^[38] no definite progress was made, except in the preparation of plans, in the years 1827-9. In July 1827 the prefect was ordered to see to it that a primary school was supported at each mission, and compliance was promised.^[39] In October of the same year, Echeandía called for a detailed report on the lands held by each mission to be rendered before the end of the year. I find no such report in the records, though the local reports for the next year did, in several instances, contain a list of the mission ranchos.^[40]

The order brought out, however, from the padres of San Juan Capistrano, a defence of the Indian title to the lands in California running back to the time when, according to Ezra the prophet, the Jews wandered across Bering Strait to people America.^[41]

In a communication of 1833 Echeandía, after alluding to his instructions, by which, as we have seen, much was left to his own judgment, explained his acts in these years as follows: "Intrusted with the task of arranging the system of both Californias, supplying as best I could in indispensable cases the lack of administration of justice, busied in regulating the treasury branches since the comisario abused his trust, lacking the necessary supplies for the troops, at the end of my resources for other expenses, struggling to put in good order the necessarily tolerated traffic with foreign vessels, anxious to establish regular and secure communication with Sonora via the Colorado, combating the general addiction to the Spanish government and the despotic system, encountering the abuses introduced in all branches by the revolution and enormously propagated by the total neglect of the viceregal government during the war of independence — occupied, I say, with so many cares, without aid in the civil or military administration, and finally having no Mexican priests to take the place of the malecontent Spaniards in divine worship, if they should abandon it as happened at Santa Bárbara and San Buenaventura, or should be expelled as insufferable royalists, as some of them are, and as was he of San Luis Obispo, who favored the Solis revolt for Spain — which, though I had the good fortune to suppress it, interfered with the progress of good government — some of the missionaries mismanaging the property of their subjects, and others refusing to remain under the federal government iſ the missions were reformed; compromised thus in different ways, seeing that in the missions there remained almost illusory my repeated orders and provisions that the converts should be relieved from the cruel 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 their schools the elements of a Christian and civil education; when by my own observations and intercourse with missionaries and neophytes — in spite of the flatteries and obstacles urged that I might not remove the yoke from those miserable conquistados — I had formed a definite conception of my duty, I completed a plan reglamentario to take from the missionaries the temporal administration, which I sent to the government secretly, if I remember aright, in 1829, explaining the necessity of proper persons to make surveys, and to establish in due form the new settlements."^[42]

At the session of July 20, 1830, Echeandía brought his secularization plan before the diputacion, by which body, after much discussion and some slight modifications, it was approved in the sessions from July 29th to August 3d. This plan provided for the gradual transformation of the missions into pueblos, beginning with those nearest the presidios and pueblos, of which one or two were to be secularized within a year, and the rest as rapidly as experience might show to be practicable. Each neophyte was to have a share of the mission lands and other property. The friars might remain as curates, or establish a new line missions on the gentile frontier as they should choose. The details of the twenty-one articles constituting the document, chiefly devoted to the distribution of property and the local management of the new towns, it seems best to notice, so far as any notice may be required, in a subsequent chapter, in connection with the decree by which it was attempted to carry the plan into effect.^[43] It was not intended to enforce this measure without the approval of the supreme government, to which the plan was forwarded the 7th of September.^[44] There were also sent at the same time six supplementary articles, approved by the diputacion August 13th, providing for the establishment of two Franciscan convents at Santa Clara and San Gabriel, for which twenty or more friars were to be sent from Mexico at the expense of the pious fund, and to which the Spanish padres allowed to remain might also attach themselves. These convents were intended to supply in the future missionaries, curates, and chaplains.^[45]

Thus it is seen that the governor in his policy toward the padres, down to the end of 1830, was by no means arbitrary, unjust, or even hasty;^[46] neither was there so bitter a controversy between him and the friars as would be inferred from the general tone of what has been written on the subject.^[47] In these last years of the decade we have from the padres no special protest against the plan of secularization that was being prepared. This was partly because they believed that protests and arguments addressed to the territorial authorities would be without effect, partly because they still thought that secularization could not be effected for want of curates; but largely also, I suppose, because they had hopes of benefits to be derived from the struggle going on in Mexico. Bustamante's revolution against Guerrero was understood to be in the interest of a more conservative church and mission policy. There is no proof that the California padres were at the beginning in direct understanding with the promoters of the movement, but such is not unlikely to have been the case;^[48] and there certainly was such an understanding directly after Bustamante's accession. At any rate, their hopes of aid from the new executive proved to be well founded, as we shall see. Meanwhile the national authorities were even more dilatory and inactive than those of the territory. Nothing whatever was done in the matter. The famous junta de fomento seems to have made some kind of a report on secularization before it ceased to exist. Congress took it up in 1830, but decided to leave the missions alone at least until the arrival of the deputy from California; and finally the minister of relations approved Echeandía's plan and recommended it with the report of the junta to congress at the beginning of 1831.^[49]

 

There are a few items of Indian affairs in the annals of these years that may as well be recorded here as elsewhere, none of them requiring more than a brief notice. In April 1826 Alférez Ibarra had apparently two fights at or near Santa Isabel, in the San Diego district, perhaps with Indians who came from the Colorado region. In one case eighteen, and in the other twenty, pairs of ears taken from the slain—a new kind of trophy for California warfare—were sent to the comandante general. Three soldiers of the Mazatlan squadron had been murdered just before, which deed was probably the provocation for the slaughter, but the records are unsatisfactory.^[50]

Another event of the same year was an expedition under Alférez Sanchez, in November, against the Cosemenes, or Cosumnes, across the San Joaquin Valley. These Indians had either attacked or been attacked by a party of neophytes from Mission San José, who were making a holiday trip with their alcalde, and twenty or thirty of whom were killed, or at least never returned. Sanchez was absent a week, and though he had to retreat and leave the gentiles masters of the field, he had destroyed a ranchería, killed about forty Indians, and brought in as many captives.^[51]

In 1829 took place the somewhat famous campaigns against the native chieftain Estanislao, who has given his name to the Stanislaus river and county. Estanislao was a neophyte of more than ordinary ability, educated at Mission San José, of which establishment he was at one time alcalde. He ran away probably in 1827 or early in 1828, took refuge with a band of ex-neophytes and gentiles in the San Joaquin Valley, and with his chief associate, Cipriano, soon made himself famous by his daring. In November 1828 he was believed by the padres of San José and Santa Clara to be instigating a general rising among the neophytes, and Comandante Martinez was induced to send 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 insulting challenges to the soldiers.^[53]

On May 5th Alférez Sanchez left San Francisco with about forty men and a swivel-gun. On the morning of the 7th, his force having been increased at San José by the addition of vecinos and Indian auxiliaries, he reached the spot where the foe was posted in a thick wood on the river of the Laquisimes. The fight, opened by the enemy, raged all day, muskets being used on one side and arrows with a few muskets on the other. The swivel-gun proved to be damaged and ineffective, while the muskets of the foe were loaded with powder only. No advantage was gained, and at sunset Sanchez withdrew his men to a short distance. Next morning he divided his force into six parties of six men each. He stationed one to guard the horses and ammunition, and two others to protect the flanks and prevent the escape of the foe, while with the other three, under corporals Piña, Berreyesa, and Soto, he marched up to the edge of the wood. As before, the fight lasted all day, and as before, nothing was effected; though two of Piña's men, who were so rash as to enter the wood, were killed. Ammunition being exhausted, the men tired out, and the weather excessively hot, the siege was abandoned, and Estanislao left unconquered. Two soldiers had been killed and eight wounded, while eleven of the Indian allies were also wounded, one of them mortally. About the losses of the foe nothing was known.^[54]

A new expedition was prepared, for which the troops of San Francisco under Sanchez were joined to those of Monterey under Alférez Mariano G. Vallejo, who was also, by virtue of his superior rank, commander in chief of the army, now numbering one hundred and seven armed men. Vallejo had not yet had much experience as an Indian-fighter, but he had just returned from a campaign in the Tulares, in which with thirty-five men he had slain forty-eight Indians and suffered no casualties.^[55] Having crossed the San Joaquin River by means of rafts on May 29th, the army arrived next day at the scene of the former battle, where it was met as before by a cloud of arrows. The wood was found to be absolutely impenetrable, and Vallejo at once caused it to be set on fire, stationing his troops and his three-pounder on the opposite bank of the river. The fire brought the Indians to the edge of the thicket, where some of them were killed. At 5 p.m. Sanchez was sent with twenty-five men to attack the foe, and fought over two hours in the burning wood, retiring at dusk with three men wounded.

Next morning at 9 o'clock Vallejo with thirty-seven men again entered the wood. He found a series of pits and ditches arranged with considerable skill, and protected by barricades of trees and brush. Evidently the Indians could never have been dislodged from such a stronghold except by the agency that had been employed. Traces of blood were found everywhere, and there were also discovered the bodies of the two soldiers killed in the previous battle. The enemy,

however, had taken advantage of the darkness of night and had fled. Vallejo started in pursuit. He en camped that night on the Rio Laquisimes, and next morning surrounded a part of the fugitives in another thicket near their ranchería on the Arroyo Seco. Here there were some negotiations, but the Indians declared they would die rather than surrender, and late in the afternoon the attack was begun. A road was cut through the chaparral with axes, along which the field-piece and muskets were pressed forward and continually discharged. The foe retired slowly to their ditches and embankments in the centre, wounding eight of the advancing soldiers. When the cannon was close to the trenches the ammunition gave out, which fact, and the heat of the burning thicket, forced the men to retreat. During the night the besieged Indians tried to escape one by one, some succeeding, but many being killed. Next morning nothing was found but dead bodies and three living women. That day, June 1st, at noon, provisions being exhausted, Vallejo started for San José, where he arrived on the fourth.^[56]

One phase of this campaign demands further notice. One of the contemporary narratives, the diary of Piña, represents that at least six of the captives, including three or four women found alive in the second thicket, were put to death, most of them by the order or with the consent of the commander. Osio in his history tells us that some captured leaders were shot or hanged to trees, and Padre Duran made a complaint, to which no attention was paid. Vallejo in his official report says nothing respecting the death of the captives. At the time, however, Vallejo was accused by Padre Duran, but claimed to be innocent.^[57] Echeandía ordered an investigation of the charge that three men and three women, not taken in battle, had been shot and then hanged;^[58] and the investigation was made. From the testimony the fiscal decided that only one man and one woman had been killed, the latter unjustifiably by the soldier Joaquin Alvarado, whose punishment was recommended.^[59] There is no doubt that in those, as in later times, to the Spaniards, as to other so-called civilized races, the life of an Indian was a slight affair, and in nearly all the expeditions outrages were committed; but it would require strong er evidence than exists in this case to justify any special blame to a particular officer.^[60]

 

In June 1827 orders were sent to Echeandía from Mexico to found a fort on the northern frontier in the region of San Rafael or San Francisco Solano. The

object was not only to protect those establishments against gentile tribes, but also and perhaps chiefly to prevent a further extension of Russian power. The missions were to be called upon to furnish the required aid in laborers, implements, and food, the corresponding instructions being also sent through the guardian to the president. Echeandia s reply was to the effect that there were no means to build a fort, but he would try to construct quarters near San Rafael for a military guard, and he did in March 1828 order Romualdo Pacheco to go to the north and select a suitable site, which is the last I hear of the matter.^[61]

 

Respecting the seasons from 1826 to 1830, I find nothing or next to nothing in the records; but I suppose that the winter of 1827–8. was a wet one, and the next of 1828–9 one of unprecedented drought. The flood is mentioned in various newspaper items, on the authority of Vallejo and other old Californians, and of trappers said to have been in the Sacramento Valley; it is confirmed by one letter of the time, January 1828, which speaks of the flood at Monterey as something like that of 1824–5.^[62] The drought of 1829 is shown by the failure of the crops, the total harvest being 24,000 fanegas, the smallest from 1796 to 1834, and less than half the average for this decade; though strangely I find no correspondence on the subject save two slight items, one from San Rafael and the other from San Diego.^[63]

Notes

1. Arch. Sta B., MS., xi. 350, 358–60, 400; xii. 369. The guardian sent Sanchez his patent June 9, 1827; and Duran notified him Sept. 30th. Sanchez was at first unwilling to accept. Duran was elected the second time May 26, 1830, Peyri and Antonio Jimeno being named as second and third suplentes. Both Duran and Sanchez held the title of vicar under the bishop.
2. According to the plan de gobierno of Jan. 8, 1824, citizens paid 10 per cent in kind on all produce, while the missions were to pay a fixed rate per head of cattle or fanega of grain. By decree of Jan. 1, 1826, Echeandía, with the consent of Prefect Sarría, ordered that the tax be equalized between citizens and missions, the latter apparently to pay in kind. Decree of Jan. 1, 1826. S. José, Arch., MS., iv. 13; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 47-8; Dept. St. Pap., MS., 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, 1827, Echeandía to Sarría, urging the importance and justice of this tax, which here and elsewhere in official accounts is spoken of as a 'loan.' Dept. Rec., MS., v. 80; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 37; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xix. 138. April 22, 1826, Echeandía to min. of war. Argues that the missions should also pay tithes. He is informed that some of them have $70,000 or $100,000 in their coffers. St. Pap., Sac., MS., xix. 30-1. Oct. 31st, Herrera to Estrada on mission accounts. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 98.
3. June 23, 1826, circular from president received at S. Rafael to effect that the Mex. govt was going to pay all drafts presented within six months from Jan. 1st, and those not so presented would be outlawed. This news reached Cal. just after the expiration of the time! Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxviii. 94. July 28, 1827, Echeandía notifies the prefect and comandantes that all creditors of the national treasury must present their claims to the comisario. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 71.
4. June 10, 1826, Duran to Herrera. Protests against furnishing the diezmo of cattle branded for the national rancho, when there has already been delivered during the year a much larger amount than that of the tithe. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 13-16. Nov. 30th, P. Viader, upbraiding Lieut Martinez for not sending money to pay for blankets, says, 'My friend, we have now arrived at a point of date et dabitur vobis.' Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxix. 94. Dec. 18th, Duran says he likes to see the soldiers fill their bellies with meat, and not feel hungry. Id., 95. April 19, 1827, draft by Habilitado Maitorena on habilitado general in favor of Sta Bárbara mission for $8,725, the amount of supplies furnished apparently before 1825. Arch. Misiones, MS., ii. 177-8. Feb. 27, 1827, gov. orders Lieut Ibarra, since all conciliatory and courteous means have failed, to go with a force to S. Diego mission, and bring away all the grain the mules can carry. Resistance will be regarded as an overt act against the nation. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 27. Many certificates to effect that a parlre has delivered provisions 'en calidad de préstamo para que se le reintegre por cuenta del supremo gobierno.' Arch. Arzob., MS., vii. passim. A large number of drafts of comandantes in favor of missions, 1825-30, in Id., v. pt 2. June 7, 1828, Echeandía proposes that the expense of maintaining friendly relations with the Indians be deducted from the sums due the nearest missions. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 27. Oct. 7th, E. instructs Capt. Argüello to borrow $800 of the mission of S. José. Id., vi. 109-10. Oct. 22d, E. orders Lieut José Fernandez and 30 artillerymen just landed to be quartered at S. Diego mission. Id., vi. 115. Jan. 8, 1829, E. to Duran, urging him to 'lend' supplies, or sell them for a draft on the comisario of Sonora, which he doubts not will be paid promptly. Id., vii. 53. May 4th, Vallejo complains of destitution at Monterey, and no aid 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. Duran says he has paid $200 on menace of force being used. S. José Arch., MS., ii. 48. Jan. 15, 1830, P. Viader refuses to aid directly or indirectly in matters pertaining to war. Id., i. 37. April 25th, congressman urges the injustice of imposing such heavy burdens on the missions. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 897-8. July 17th, com. of Sta Bárbara complains that the padre will neither give nor sell supplies. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 55.
5. May 31, 1827, guardian to president, stipends of 1819-21 and most of 1822 paid. Certificates should be sent in for those of 1825-6. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 400. June 27th, news received at S. Rafael; amount, $24,000. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xviii. 97. The brig Bravo with mission goods was wrecked at Acapulco late in 1827, but the cargo was saved. S. Luis Obispo, Lib. Mision, MS., 7. Aug. 25, 1828, $6,861 in goods sent from Tepic to S. Blas for shipment, consisting of woollen and cotton stuffs, rice, sugar, rebozos, metates, and 25 pounds of cinnamon, shipped by the María Ester. Id., 8-9; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 827-8.
6. May 1826, one of the padres claimed to have refused to perform mass, etc., by Sarría's order, and he signed a certificate to that effect. Dept. Rec., MS., iv. 39. Oct. 31st, Echeandia notifies S. that he must leave Mexican territory. Nov. 13th, Sarría says he is ready. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 24. 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 between the gov. and prefect at Sta Bárbara. Oct. 31st, E. notifies S. that a successor will be named and a passport issued. Dept. Rec., MS., iv. 11. Nov. 30th, sends the passport from S. Diego to Capt. Gonzalez at Monterey. Id., iv. 17. Dec. 11th, S. to the padres. Has received his passport from the pres. of Mex. Is resigned, but asks for prayers. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxviii. 89. 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 of the padres. Nov. 21, 1827, order from Mex. that S. be made to obey the orders of July 9, 1825, and Nov. 15, 1826, to depart. Supt. Govt St. Pap., MS., xix. 43. June 30, 1828, E. to min. of justice. S. will be sent away as soon as there is a vessel for Europe or the U. S. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 30.
7. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 128-9. The old trouble was still active in 1926, for on May 1st Capt. Argüello reported that yesterday having called on P. Abella to take part in the celebration of the pope's recognition of national independence, the padre refused. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 13-14. Next day it was complained that P. Esténega declined to perform religious services in connection with the publication of certain bandos. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 4. April 28th, record of the council referred to in the text. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 128-9.
8. June 3, 1826, E. to com. of Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 134.
9. The position taken by the other padres will, however, be learned from a subsequent document. Answers of the S. Diego and Monterey friars in Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 5-9, 17-20. Among the latter Sarría was not included, not being regarded as the minister of any particular mission. Abella 'came to this country for God, and for God will go away, if they expel him;' Fortuni 'no se anima á hacer tal juramento, pero sí guardar fidelidad;' Arroyo de la Cuesta '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;' Uría 'finds it not in his conscience to take the oath;' Pedro Cabot 'has sworn allegiance to Fernando VII.;' Sancho, the same, and 'cannot go back on his word;' Juan Cabot 'cannot accommodate his conscience to such a pledge;' and Luis Martinez says 'his spirit is not strong enough to bear any additional burden.' Aug. 7th, Sarría addresses to the padres a circular argument on the subject, similar to that addressed in former years to Gov. Argüello, and called out by an argument of P. Ripoll, who it seems had wished to accommodate his conscience to the oath by bringing up anew the allegiance sworn to independence and Iturbide. Id., v. pt i. 10-13.
10. Aug. 16, 1826, com. gen. to Echeandía. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 36-8. Beechey, Voyage, ii. 12, speaks of the dissatisfaction caused by the exacting of the oath, and says many padres prepared to depart rather than violate their allegiance to Spain.
11. Statement of Cané to E. about the $6,000 shipped in August 1826. St. Pap., Sac., MS., xiv. 14-15. June 4, 1827, Gonzalez to E. Id., xiv. 26-30. G. was very violent in his charges against the padres.
12. Spence, in Taylor's Discov. and Founders, ii. no. 24. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 131-2, claims that while Ripoll and Altimira were making their escape with the mission wealth, Echeandía was being feasted by the other padres to avert suspicion. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 59-60, gives the same version.
13. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxvii. 5-9, containing the testimony of several men and the letters of Altimira to Geo. Coleman, the llavero of S. Buenaventura, dated Jan. 23d from on board the vessel. They contain kind wishes for all in Cal., instructions about mission affairs, and good spiritual counsels for Coleman. The padre, according to Coleman's testimony, took a small box of cigars and some books.
14. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 184-5.
15. Mrs Ord., Ocurrencias, MS., 22-4, says they took no money at all. Ripoll wept as he took leave of some of his Indians who went on board in Steele's boat. Jan. 25, 1928, Echcandía announces the flight, and orders the Harbinger 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, Luis Argüello alludes to the flight. St. Pap., Sac., 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. 90-1. Mar. 20, 1829, the Zacatecas college will replace Ripoll and Altimira. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iv. 2-3.
16. Jan. 29, 1828, E. to min. of rel. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 22. Sept. 23d, E. to Martinez. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 6-7.
17. June 3, 1828, Lawlor to Sanchez. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 63-4. June 8th, Sanchez to E. Id., 65-6. Aug. 21st, 29th, E. to S. and to the alcalde. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 84-5, 90.
18. See chap. ii. of this volume.
19. Oct. 20, 1828, Echeandía to min. of war. The padres are violent at the law for their expulsion, and are clamoring for passports and complaining of detention by force. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 39-40. Dec. 6th, E. says that most of the 27 padres have agreed long before the date of the law to take the 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 passports were issued as several have asked, the missions would be left without government and the territory without spiritual care. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 50. Duhaut-Cilly says he offered to carry the padres over to Manila; but he got a letter from Sarría, in which he said he was resolved not to abandon the flock intrusted to him by heaven until forced to do so, and he advised his companions to the same effect. The same writer notes the arrival of 3 Franciscans – they could not have been from California – at the Sandwich Islands on the French ship Comète. Viaggio, ii. 200-1, 219-20.
20. March 26, 1828, P. Arreguin to Sarría. It had been at first proposed to dissolve the college; but finally the guardian and discretorio had decided to choose a vicario de casa, and had chosen the writer. He asks for Sarría's views 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 servants of different grades. Arch. Sta B., MS., ix. 90-4.
21. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 26-33. The following friars had taken the oath: Fernando Martin, 60 years old; Antonio Peyri, 70 years; Francisco Suñer, 71 years; and Marcos Antonio de Vitoria, 69 years, who however had subse- quently retracted, though faithful and obedient to the government, of blameless life, and probably influenced by his excessive respect for his prelate. The following had taken the oath with some conditions: Gonzalez de Ibarra, Antonio Jaime, and Arroyo de la Cuesta; Boscana was ready to take the oath, and Barona, Zalvidea, and José Sanchez also with the conditions. This left 14 who would not take the oath, of whom Catalá, Vialer, and Abella were over 60 years old; several were in bad health, and several were highly recommendable for their faithfulness. Should new padres come, E. proposed to grant passports to Arroyo, Ordaz, P. Cabot, Sancho, J. Cabot, Ibarra, Oliva, Duran, Esténega, Abella, and Uría, in that order. There were recommended to remain, Amorós, Catalá, Vitoria, Viader, Fortuni, Martin, Boscana, Sanchez, Zalvidea, and especially Peyri, Jaime, Barona, and Suñer. Martinez was the only 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 the expulsion.
22. July 6, 1829, E. to various officials. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 92-3, 97; Id., S. José, ii. 16-17; Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 190-1.
23. July-September, applications of the padres for passports. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 54-7. Aug. 11th, Echeandía to min. of rel. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 43-6. In this document the gov. gives a very clear and complete statement of the whole matter.
24. Aug. 25th, S. José, Peticion del Ayuntamiento en favor de los Frailes Españoles, 1829, MS.; Monterey, Peticion al Presidente y Congreso en favor de los Frailes Españoles, 1829, MS. Oct. 22d, gov. approves the petitions. Dept. Rec., 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. 145-8.
25. Sept. 9, 1829, gov. to comandantes. Has heard that some padre burns daily 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 do these things, and forward the result. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 25, 48; Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 44. The guilty parties were not found.
26. The evidence, some of the items resting on the statement of a single soldier, was, so far as it is on record, as follows: That he had freely supplied the rebels with food, had been very intimate with Solis and his leaders at San Luis, had shown anger at certain soldiers when they said 'viva la república,' had spoken mysteriously of his 'amo Francisquito,' in Spain or Mexico, had shown a paper with 'viva Fernando VII.' written on it, had derided independence and liberty, and had lodged Alf. Fernandez del Campo in a room which bore the inscription 'V. F. 7' on the ceiling. Solis, Proceso, etc., MS.; Fernandez to Echeandía in St. Pap., Sac., MS., X. 26-7. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 93-105, tells us that there were documents proving conclusively that Martinez was plotting against the republic and carrying on a secret correspondence with the rebels in Mexico; but nothing of this kind was shown in the recorded evidence, and the same may be said of a letter of encouragement from Martinez found on the person of Solis at his capture, mentioned by Alvarado. Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 155.
27. Martinez admitted to Lieut Romualdo Pacheco that he had received letters from Solis, urging him to arm his neophytes in defence of the Spanish flag soon to be raised. St. Pap., Miss, and Col., MS., ii. 30-1. Testimony of Martinez and the PP. Cabot in Solis, Proceso, MS., 100-1, 98-9. March 4th, Martinez, Defensa dirigida al Comandante General, 1830, MS., in Id., 93-8. Feb. 9th, Sarría, Defensa del Padre Luis Martinez, 1830, MS. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 31-6, gives some details of the padre's confinement in her father'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 writer and many other Californians think there was no foundation for the special charges against Martinez at this time.
28. Record of the junta of March 9th, in Solis. Proceso, MS., 102-5. The officers were J. J. Rocha, M. G. Vallejo, Domingo Carrillo, M. G. Lobato, J. M. Ibarra. and A. V. Zamorano. A previous junta of Feb. 26th is alluded to.
29. Carrillo (José), Doc., MS., 21. The Spaniards A. J. Cot and family, and J. I. Mancisidor sailed in the same vessel. Feb. 6th, Echeandía's order to arrest Martinez. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 16. March 9th, E. announces the sentence to Prefect Sarría. Id., viii. 27.
30. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 96-100, says that he was the officer who took Martinez on board. He walked very slowly, but as he was old and corpulent, was not hurried. When they were alone in the cabin the padre said: 'Perhaps you thought me drunk. Not so, my son, but see here' – proceeding to show that his clothing was heavily lined with gold! The young alférez was glad to know that the friar had made provision for a rainy day, and promised to keep his secret.
31. See chap. xviii., vol. ii., for the decree of Sept. 13, 1813, and subsequent developments in Cal.
32. Jan. 31, 1825, min. of war to gov. A statement of grievances suffered by the Indians of Cal. States that it is the president's desire to do away with so vicious a system, but suggests that the reform should perhaps be one of policy rather than of authority. It is not expedient to break up openly the system of the padres, who if offended might by their influence cause great evils. Still it was essential to check the arbitrary measures that oppressed the Indians, and afford the latter the advantages of the liberal system — but guardedly and slowly to avoid the license that might result from unwise measures. All is intrusted to E.'s experience and good judgment. St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 42, quoted by E. in 1833 in a letter to Figueroa.
33. According to Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 109-10; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 51-3; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 89-90, Echeandía, immediately after taking his office, sent Lieut Pacheco to make a tour of inspection in the southern missions. The padres were not pleased; but Pacheco having some trouble with P. Boscana at S. Juan Capistrano, went so far as to assemble the neophytes and to make a political speech, in which he told the Indians of a new chief who had come to the country to be their friend, and give them equal rights with Spaniards.
34. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 129-30.
35. July 25, 1826, Echeandía, Decreto de Emancipacion á favor de Neófitos, 1826, MS. Received at S. Rafael Aug. 23d. Arch. Misiones, MS., i. 297. Forwarded by Lieut Estudillo to padre of S. Antonio. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 114-17. Sergt Anastasio Carrillo sent by Capt. Guerra to proclaim the new order in the missions of the Sta Bárbara district, as he did at S. Fernando on Sept. 26th and at S. Buenaventura on Sept. 29th. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 789-92. Here the Indian was authorized, should the cabo de escolta and padre refuse to act in presenting his application for license, to leave the mission without permission and apply in person to the comandante. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 22, quotes the order of July 25th.
36. June 20, 1828, gov. to comandantes and prefect. Dept. Rec., MS., vi, 57.
37. Beechey's Voyage, ii. 12-13, 320. A few doc. bearing on individual cases of application for license. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 23-4; Dept. Rec., MS., v. 65; viii. 34. April 27, 1827, gov. says to com. of S. Diego that as the Indians of S. Juan neglect their work and make a wrong application of their privileges, they are to be admonished seriously that those who behave themselves properly will obtain their full freedom when his plans are perfected, while others will be punished. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 44. May 20, 1827, Martinez is to inform the Indians that in a few days E. will issue an order for them to be treated the same as gente de razon. Id., v. 46. Dec. 6, 1826, E. to sup. govt. Speaks of the monopoly by the friars of all the land, labor, and 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 mission property among the best of the neophytes. Id., v. 132-3. Oct. 20, 1828, E. to min. of war, says the Ind. at most missions are clamoring to be formed into pueblos. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 39-40.
38. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 52-4, says that the ideas instilled into the minds of the neophytes by the gefe político made a great change in them. They were not as contented nor as obedient as before. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 119-20, takes the same view of the matter.
39. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 35; Dept. Rec., MS., v. 54; Leg. Rec., MS., i. 79-80.
40. Oct. 7th, Echeandía's bando in Olvera, Doc., MS., 1. Names of mission ranchos in the south. Prov. St. Pap., Presid., MS., i. 97-8. Bandini, in a letter to Barron, 1828, says the missions have seized upon nearly all the land in the territory, so as to exclude private persons. Bandini, Doc., MS., 8.
41. Zalvidea and Barona, Peticion al Gefe Político á favor de los Indios, 1827, MS.
42. March 19, 1833, E. to Figueroa in St. Pap., Miss. and Col., MS., ii. 42-4. Strange as it may seem, E. makes a full stop in his sentence as above. He then goes on to explain his policy in 1831, of which I shall speak later.
43. Echeandía, Plan para convertir en pueblos las misiones de la Alta California, 1829-30, MS. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 105-9, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 159-60, mention the action of the diputacion, and give the substance of an introductory message or argument presented by Echeandía on the advantages of secularization.
44. Sept. 7, 1830, E. to min. of rel. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 79.
45. Leg. Rec., MS., i. 163-6; Guerra, Doc., MS., i. 15-17; Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 79.
46. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 283-5, notes that E. used gentle measures, as he was obliged to do, while the padres were less careful about the prosperity of the missions than they had formerly been. Shea, Catholic Missions, 109-12, represents E.'s rule as a succession of arbitrary and oppressive acts against the friars. Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 45, says that E. had few scruples and aimed only to enrich himself by despoiling the missions. Spence, according to Taylor's Discov. and Founders, ii. 24, says that E. had taken some rash steps 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 might appropriate their services to their own use.'
47. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 53-4, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 89-90, tell us that about 1826 the padres not only refused to furnish any more supplies for the troops, but had a large part of the mission cattle slaughtered for their hides and tallow, with a view to run away with as much as possible of the mission wealth. I think, however, that these writers, like others, exaggerate the quarrel, and that there was no such slaughter of cattle until several years later.
48. In the famous Fitch trial, Fitch, Causa Criminal, MS., etc., 339-40, President Sanchez, urged to arrest Echeandía for trial before an ecclesiastical court, declined to do so on account of the tumult it would cause, the prospect of an early change of governors, and the recommendations of Bustamante in his 'most esteemed private letter of April 1lth,' which is quoted as follows: 'Your zeal should not rest a moment in a matter of so great interest; you will understand at once the rectitude of my intentions. Therefore I promise myself that you will not only aid by your influence and by every means in your power the success of my plans, but also take the greatest pains to reëstablish public tranquillity, which to my great sorrow is disturbed, and to bring about perfect peace and harmony among the people. This is my business, which I recommend very particularly to the prudence of your paternity, on whose aid I count for the accomplishment of my desires.' The president also uses, respecting the new governor, the following play upon words: 'Habiendo logrado ya esta desgraciada provincia su Victoria, seguramente se debe esperar que esta jurisdiccion eclesiástica usurpada, y oprimida, tambien conseguirá su victoria.' Vallejo, Hist. Cal., Ms., ii. 109-10, says that the padres learned of Bustamante's pronunciamiento just after the action of the diputacion, and that they immediately signed a petition to the govt against Echeandía, though pretending to the latter at the same time to be anxious to give up the mission temporalities.
49. Mexico, Mem. Relaciones. 1831, p. 33. Cárlos Carrillo, writing from Tepic, April 2, 1831, referred to information obtained from Navarro, the member from Lower California, that most of the congressmen had opposed any 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 6, 1825, by J. J. Espinosa do los Rios, C. M. Bustamante, P. V. Sola, Tomás Suría, Tomás Salgado, Mariano Dominguez, J. M. Almanza, Manuel Gonzalez de Ibarra, J. J. Ormachea, and F. de P. Tamariz (the report of the junta alluded to by the minister?), in favor of including the mission lands in the colonization law of 1824. Jan. 15, 1831, Alaman to governor. The plan of founding two convents has been referred to the minister of justice. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vii. 1.
50. Dept. St. Pap. MS., i. 136-7; Id. Ben., Pref. y Juzg., iii. 81-3; S. Diego, Lib. Mision, MS., 96.
51. Sanchez, Journal of the enterprise against the Cosemenes, 1826. 'Written with gunpowder on the field of battle!' in Beechey's Voyage, ii. 24-31. The expedition lasted from Nov. 19th to Nov. 27th. The mission of S. José had defrayed the expenses, the padre deeming it necessary to avenge the outrage on his neophytes; but he thought the 40 new converts too dearly bought, feared a new attack from the Cosemenes, and begged Capt. Beechey for some fireworks with which to frighten the foe in case of necessity. In the diary the Cosemenes, the original form of the later Cosumues, lived on or near the Rio San Francisco. On the way thither the army passed Las Positas, Rio San Joaquin, and Rio Yachicumé. One soldier, José Maria Gomez, was killed by the bursting of his own musket. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 85-6, says Sanchez could not get at the Indian warriors, but killed 30 women and children, and with this shameful glory returned, bringing 2 children and an old woman captives. He says the neophyte victims belonged to San Francisco Solano. Elliot gives the substance of Sanchez's diary in Overland Monthly, iv. 341-2. Huish, Narrative, 427-30, takes the account from Beechey. Bojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 4-7, describes the campaign with some embellishments from his fancy. Nov. 3d, Bernal to Martinez. Says that 21 Christian Indians have been killed, and calls for aid. The people are much excited. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 135. May 20, 1826, Capt. Argüello leaves S. Francisco on a 34 days' tour of inspection eastward. St. Pap., Sac., MS., xi. 5. Jan. 22d, corporal of S. Juan Capistrano announces rising of the Indians, who have insulted him and want to put the padre in the stocks. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 134-5. April 1827, complaints of robberies at the same mission. Id., ii. 12. Feb. 1827, trouble at S. Luis Rey, where a neophyte used some very violent and vile language against the Mexican govt and its Cal. representatives. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lviii. 2; Beechey's Voyage, ii. 36. Nov. 1827, allusion to troubles with gentiles at Sta Clara. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 115. Oct. 23, 1828, Indian 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., ii. 6. Dec., two men killed by Indians near S. José. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., i. 20.
52. Nov. 9, 1828, PP. Duran and Viader to Martinez. Nov. 20th, Martinez to Echcandia. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 68-70.
53. Possibly, however, the force of 20 men was sent out in 1828 as planned, accomplishing nothing. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 126-30, describes such an expedition under Sergt Soto, during which there was a fight; while Bojorges, Recuerdos, 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 evident that both writers confound this entrada more or less with later ones. March 1, 1829, P. Duran to Martinez, complaining of a new attack by Estanislao on the mission Indians. Arch. Arzob., M.S., v. pt i. 53–4. April 26th, Martinez to alcalde of S. José, asking for supplies and men for an expedition to start next Sunday. The conduct of the Indians is shameful, especially the challenges of Estanislao. S. José, Arch., MS., vi. 10. May 6th (probably an error in date), gov. orders Martinez to send Alf. Sanchez with as many soldiers as possible, the S. José militia, and a swivel-gun on a raid against the Indians. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 149.
54. Sanchez, Compaña contra Estanislao y sus Indios sublevados, 1829, MS. Dated at S. José on May 10th. Great praise was awarded to the troops for gallantry, and especially to Corp. Soto and privates Manuel Peña and Lorenzo Pacheco. May 5th, departure of Sanchez from S. Francisco. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 20. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 129-30, gives some particulars about the loss of the two men, and says that Soto died of his wounds a little later at S. José. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 57-60, gives an absurdly exaggerated account of the battle and of the enemy's fortifications. Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 22-4, has a quite accurate narrative from memory, recalling even the name of the Rio Laquisimes, which may have been that now called the Stanislaus, though it is not certain.
55. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 20. According to a document in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xx. 280, Vallejo had been in two acciones de guerra as commander, one in the Sierra Nevada from S. Miguel, and the other in the Tulares, where he had one man killed and 15 wounded. May 16, 1820, Martinez orders Vallejo to march with Sanchez to chastise the rebels of Sta Clara and S. José assembled at Los Rios. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 174.
56. Vallejo, Campaña contra Estanislao y sus Indios sublevados, 1829, MS. This is the commander's official report dated at S. José June 4th. Piña, Diario de la Expedition al Valle de San José, 1829. This is a diary kept by Corp. Joaquin Piña of the artillery, who accompanied the expedition. It extends from May 19th, the date of departure from Monterey, to June 13th, when they returned to Monterey. The details, beyond the limits of the actual campaign as given in my text, are unimportant. The original MS. was given me by Gen. Vallejo. June 5th, Martinez congratulates Vallejo on his defeat of the rebels at Los Rios. Regrets that he could not follow up the advantage gained. Orders him to S. Francisco to plan further operations. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 175. Dec. 31st, Martinez states in the hojas de servicios of Vallejo and Sanchez that no decisive results were obtained, though 4 men were killed (?) and 11 wounded. Id., i. 204; xx. 142. Oct. 7th, Echeandía pardons neophytes who had been in rebellion. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 230. Alvarado's narrative of this campaign, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 57-08, drawn evidently from his imagination, is so wonderfully inaccurate that no condensation can do it justice, and I have no space to reproduce it in full. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 133-8, gives an account considerably more accurate than that of Alvarado, 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 order of no quarter was given by Vallejo, the infuriated auxiliaries wrought a terrible carnage among the foe, and the pits dug for defences were utilized as graves. Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 22-6, names two soldiers, Espinosa and Soto, as fatally wounded, and says that Estanislao was captured. Bojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 14-22, who confounds the three expeditions, names Peña and Pacheco as the two killed under Sanchez, and says that Antonio Soto died of his wounds at S. José.
57. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 178.
58. Aug. 7, 1829. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 213.
59. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxx. 13. Lieut Martinez was the fiscal to whom the case was intrusted.
60. A few items of Indian affairs for 1830: April, sergeants Salazar and Rico sent with a force to prevent trouble at Sta Inés. Quiet restored in 3 days. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Md., MS., lxxxviii. 1, 4. July-Sept., a grand paseo marítimo proposed by P. Duran, in which the vecinos of S. José were invited to join. The object was to visit the rivers and Tulares, and inspire respect among the gentiles by peaceable methods. The mission would pay the expense. S. José., Arch., MS., i. 38-9. Dec., Arrival of suspicious Indians at S. Fernando. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., i. 95.
61. June 6, 1827, min. of war to Echeandía. St. Pap., Miss. and Col., MS., ii. 310; June 13th, guardian to president. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 176–7; 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.
62. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxix. 190.
63. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 364; Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 181.