Mexico are not known, but the spirit of the administration which he represented was favorable to the friars; and he understood perfectly not only the illegality of Echeandía's act, but its motive and the influence of Padrés in the matter. In the north the bando pas more or less fully published in January. The document with the proper instructions and requests was sent not only to local officials, but to the padre prefect and bishop, who were urged to instruct and prepare the friars for the change.[1] The ayuntamiento of Monterey on the 8th chose a comisionado for each of the seven missions of the district.[2] José Castro and Juan B. Alvarado were sent to San Miguel and San Luis Obispo respectively, where they read the decree and made speeches to the assembled neophytes. At San Luis, and probably at all the missions of the district, the comisarios were elected; but at San Miguel, after listening to the orators, the neophytes expressed a very decided preference for the padre and
- ↑ Jan. 6, 1831, E. to bishop of Sonora. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxiii. 52. Same to prefect. Id., lxxi. 6-7; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 77. Same to comandantes and ayuntaminentos. Id., viii. 136. Jan. 12th, same to Zamorano, recommendations on distribution of land at S. Gabriel. Zamorano may have been appointed comisionado for that mission. Id., ix. 78. Jan. 12th, same to com. of Escoltas, who are to aid Alcalde Buelna in publishing the decree, and to obey not the padres' orders but those of the comisarios, after such have been chosen. Id., ix. 79.
- ↑ Monterey, Actas del Ayuntamiento, 1931-5, MS., 25. The comisionados were Juan B. Alvarado for S. Luis Obispo, José Castro for S. Miguel, Antonio Castro for S. Antonio, Tiburcio Castro for Soledad, Juan Higuera for S. Juan Bautista, Sebastian Rodriguez for Sta Cruz, and Manuel Crespo for S. Cárlos.
views in regard to the missions — that is, of course his views were favorable to the padres. Carrillo (J.), Doc., MS., 33. Jan. 14th, V. to E. Has just seen 'by a lucky accident' the edict, which contains provisions entirely contrary to superior instructions and orders. He has taken steps to counteract the evil results, but holds E. responsible if any occur. St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 35-6. Jan. 19th, V. to sup. govt, denouncing the decree as a scheme for plundering the missions, instigated by Padrés. It was published at Monterey and probably at S. Francisco; but elsewhere it was deemed too risky. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8-10. Yet the decree was known in the south; for on Jan. 21st, Com. Argüello at S. Diego directs to the com. gen. an argument against making the proposed change at S. Gabriel, chiefly because the troops could not get along without the supplies furnished by that mission. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 1-3. Echeandía in 1832 stated that the devil had prompted Victoria to prevent the publication in the south and afterwards to nullify the decree in the north, giving no reasons for such shameful conduct! St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 61. On the general fact of V.'s nullification of the decree, see Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 131; Halleck's Report, 125; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-9; Amador, Memorias, MS., 126-8.
