were summoned to assemble at San Diego on January 1, 1829; and they seem to have done so, part of them, at least, only to prove unmanageable, and to be dismissed by the gefe político. Immediately after the suspension of the southern session, a summons was issued for the diputados to convene at Monterey June 1st, and proceed to public business under the presidency of the senior vocal; but I find no evidence that any such meeting was held; in fact, Echeandía himself had no confidence that his summons would be heeded. Thus it may be said that in 1828-9 the legislature was not in session.[1]
In December 1829 Echeandía started northward again, and on the way summoned the diputacion to meet, this time at Santa Bárbara by reason of the troubles at Monterey. Possibly the body did assemble there, but only to adjourn;[2] for the troubles, to
- ↑ Dec. 1828, summons to Pico, Sanchez, and Dominguez to meet at S. Diego on Jan. 1st. Dept Rec., MS., vi. 159. Feb. 19, 1829, gov. permits Dominguez to retire because it is impossible to have any session, 3 of 5 members having refused to attend. Id., vii. 88. May 22d, gov. says that the diputados summoned to S. Diego had not wished to come on account of the illegality of meeting except at the capital; therefore he asks them to go on at Monterey without his presence. Id., vii. 164. April 10th, gov. tells the minister of relations that he suspended the junta on account of its 'desorganization,' attributable largely to the influence of Vicente Sanchez, prompted as he believes by Herrera. He proceeds to give a description of each of the 10 members in respect of character, ability, education, and property – in no case a flattering picture. Doubts that the diputados can be induced to leave their private affairs to meet even in Monterey. Id., vii. 4-6. It does not seem likely, however, that Sanchez, a Los Angeles man, should have plotted in favor of Monterey. Don Pio Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 17-19, says that at S. Diego there was just a quorum, and that he prevented the session by insisting on its being held at Angeles, and withdrawing when his wish was not followed. He also went to Monterey, and met José T. Castro, the only other proprietary member present. April 9th, summons to convene at Monterey June 1st. Dept Rec., MS., vii. 128. May 10th, Wm. A. Gale, in a letter to Cooper from S. Pedro, mentions the meeting ordered for June 1st. Vallejo. Doc., MS., xxix. 354. It seems that Sanchez was suspended from his position as diputado in the course of this affair. Dept Rec., MS., vii. 260.
- ↑ Dec. 8, 1829, E. from S. Gabriel to Sanchez, Pico, and Bandini, revoking the suspension of the first, and urging all to hasten as patriots to Sta Bárbara, in view of the critical condition. Dept Rec., MS., vii. 260. Jan. 18, 1830, similar summons to the Carrillos. Id., viii. 10. Feb. 5th, E. to comandante at Monterey, states that the diputacion did meet to devise means for the restoration of tranquillity. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 128.
MS., vi. 108. At the same time Manuel Dominguez, Salvio Pacheco, and Cárlos Castro were chosen as 1st, 2d, and 3d suplentes. The first three places were held respectively by Bandini, Anastasio Carrillo, and Buelna, who held over from the old board. St. Pap., Sac., MS., xix. 42-3.
