clined to retain the office in opposition to the will of the general and the people of Los Angeles, and the deputies, defenceless and averse to further civil dissensions, deemed it best to regard Echeandía's movement as a successful contra-pronunciamiento, which relieved them of all further responsibility. They accordingly suspended their sessions on the 17th, rendering to the national government a full report of all that had occurred, and holding themselves in readiness to meet again when the interests of the country should demand it. Pico made no further claims to the office of gefe político, nor were any such claims made for him. By the five members of the diputacion he had been recognized from January 27th to February 16th, twenty days, and under the plan of revolt he was entitled to the office. Such is the substance of Don Pio's title to be regarded as governor of California in 1832-3.[1]
While Echeandía was thus occupied with a revolutionary movement against his own friends in the south, another Mexican officer was engaged in developing revolutionary schemes, equally selfish and ambitious, but far less treacherous, in the north. Captain Agustin V. Zamorano and others pronounced at Monterey against the plan of San Diego, and all who had favored that movement. Zamorano had been Victoria's secretary and friend, but so far as can be known had taken no part in the troubles of 1831, had made no effort to defend his unpopular master in his time of need, but had perhaps promised neutrality. Now that Victoria was out of the country, aware that the popular feeling in favor of Echeandía was by no means so strong as had been that against Victoria, knowing that current disputes must be settled event-
- ↑ On the trouble between Pico and Echeandía, see, in addition to the records already cited, Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 41-4; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 189-92; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 159-64; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 184-90; Ord, Ocurrenrias, MS., 50-1; Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 28-9. There are no variations of statement requiring notice. P. says that E. subsequently recognized him; but such does not appear to have been the fact.
