been wont to deplore the base ingratitude of Mexico in thus rewarding rebels, while the loyal sureños for all their suffering and sacrifice got no thanks. The reader knows that southern loyalty to Mexico was but a very flimsy pretence. But for his own injudicious acts and utter incompetence as a ruler, Cárlos Carrillo would merit a degree of sympathy; as it was, his island grant was quite as much as he deserved. His appointment had been obtained by his brother on the representation that it would bring California back to her Mexican allegiance; but Alvarado had accomplished all that before Carrillo's appointment was known there, and all subsequent disorders had resulted from the refusal of Don Cárlos to await the decision of the supreme government. The president had been made to understand that Alvarado and his associates were the men who could control California, and whose good will was of some value to the national administration. Well would it be for the reputation of Mexico if her record were as clear on every matter of state policy. Alvarado has often been represented, by writers who have disposed of several years' annals in a paragraph, as having accepted centralism in gratitude for his recognition as governor; but he had really sworn to the constitution a year before he was so recognized. Another theory that has been current to some extent is that Castillero brought from Mexico two blank commissions to be filled up in favor of Alvarado or Carrillo as circumstances and his own judgment should dictate, having also duplicate papers by which to reward with an island estate the one who should not receive the governorship. The reader with the facts before him will perhaps agree with me that this version is improbable to the verge of absurdity.[1]
- ↑ This version of duplicate documents is mentioned as a rumor by several Californians in their memoirs; and it was given currency by Peachy in an argument in the New Almaden case, an item from which has been widely circulated in the newspapers. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 394-6, describes the matter very unintelligibly. Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 99, deemed the action
