office, was supported by the diputacion, and recognized by all the local authorities of the territory, meeting no opposition except that alluded to in San Diego. He ruled until January 1836; but during his term there was nothing in connection with political annals which calls for notice here. Castro carried out as nearly as possible his predecessor's plans, performed faithfully the few routine duties required of him, and if he had no opportunity to make himself famous, he at the least committed no serious or disgraceful errors.[1]
- ↑ General mention of Castro's succession and rule, including in most cases the transfer to Gutierrez in Jan. 1836: Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 41-5, stating that Zamorano worked hard to induce Figueroa to give both commands to Gutierrez at the first; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 15-16; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 14-15; Pico, Acont., MS., 27-9, saying C. expected opposition from G., and gathered some of his friends and relatives about him; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS.; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 69-74, mentioning some troubles with P. Mercado; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 31-2, characterizing the hesitation of G. to accept the command as mere pretence; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 30; Vallejo (J.J.), Reminis., MS., 117, complimenting C. for having kept the country free from the strife of factions; Juarez, Narr., MS., 7, offsetting C.'s good record at this time against his bad one of later years; Botello, Anales, MS., 18-19; Tuthills Hist. Cal., 141; Ord. Ocurrencias, MS., 84-5; Mofras, Explor., i. 298; Marsh's Letter, MS., 7. The last two omit all mention of C.'s rule, and make G. succeed Figueroa.
1836, Capt. Portilla to Gutierrez. Says that Pio Pico did not recognize Castro's right to be gefe político. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxxi. 31. In a complaint of the alcalde to the gefe político in April 1836, the síndico is charged with having presented in the name of the people a paper inviting other ayuntamientos not to recognize Castro. He also went about inciting the Indians to a campaign against Monterey, affirming that Capt. Portilla would take command of the movement. All this in Dec. 1835. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 98. Whether this 'plan' had anything in common with that accredited to Bandini and investigated by Gov. Chico's orders the next year, I am not quite certain. Id., 104, 116. Bandini's statement is in his Hist. Cal., MS., 79-80, but he gives no particulars. José María Estudillo, Datos, MS., 7, says that his father was invited by Figueroa to take the gefatura, but declined. Botello, Anales, MS., 17-18, gives the same version.
