cumstances' required action as provided for in the previous resolutions, without awaiting special instructions from the government or the arrival of its commissioner. The reason alleged was that in the long interval between the passage and enforcement of the secularization law, the mission property was in danger of being wasted by maleadministration — a reason not wholly without force. In reality, however, the position of Figueroa in 1834 did not differ much from that of Echeandía in 1831. Each desired to advance the scheme of secularization, each had instructions to that effect, each founded his action on a national law — of Spain in one case and of Mexico in the other — each expected the early arrival of a successor, each preferred from motives of personal pride and for the personal interests of friends and supporters that the change should be inaugurated by himself rather than by his successor, and each had the support of the diputacion. Both knew perfectly well that they had strictly no legal right to act in the matter, and that the motives alleged, though of some weight, were not urgent for immediate action; yet both chose to assume the responsibility of such action. Figueroa's act, if somewhat less arbitrary and uncalled for than that of Echeandía, was none the less a trick. Unlike Echeandía's, but largely from accidental causes, it proved to a certain extent successful. It is by no means impossible that more was known in California of the instructions to Híjar and the plans of Padrés than was admitted in public discussions and correspondence.[1]
- ↑ April 16, 1834, congress passed a decree, published by bando on April 19th, as follows: '1. All the missions of the republic shall be secularized. 2. The 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.' Arrilaga, Recop., 1834, p. 134-5; Dept. St. Pap.. Mont., MS., vii. 6; Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., x. 1; Hayes' Mission Book, i. 220; Id., Legal Hist. S. Diego, i. 57; Jones' Report, no. 13. This law seems never to have been mentioned in Californian discussions, and was probably not understood to apply to Cal., as very likely — from the use of the terms 'governors' and 'states,' and the existence of a special law — it was not intended to apply; yet had F. known of this decree, he might have used it somewhat plausibly in defence In Figueroa, Manifiesto, passim, there is much argument for of his course.
