little to his unpopularity. A quarrel resulted, the details of which it is neither desirable nor possible to follow closely. What were the relations between Herrera and Echeandía before they left Mexico, I do not know; but after their arrival in California there could hardly fail to be jealousy, especially on Echeandía's part; and at any rate, the latter soon became leader in the opposition to the comisario. I append some items from the correspondence of the times.[1]
Herrera was an intelligent and able man; his acts were approved by his superior officer; and I find in contemporary documents no proof of irregularities or unfaithfulness in his official conduct; though it would perhaps be presumptuous to found on the imperfect record an opinion that he acted wisely or
- ↑ March 3, 1826, com. gen. to Herrera. Reproves him for not sending accounts so that the great necessity of the troops might be known and relieved. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 22. March 25th, Id. to Id., announces that all claims of Cal. may be presented at the comisaría. Id., ii. 17. April 7th, H. to Echeandía. Charges that Lieut. Estudillo for a just reprimand becomes abusive. Id., i. 41-2. May 11th, E. orders that all amounts due the treasury be paid at the comisario's office. Dept. Rec., MS., iv. 37. June 27th, H. to E. Wishes to know why he is not recognized as gefe de hacienda; measures have been ordered without his consent or knowledge. He wishes E. to define his own position, so that he, H., may be freed from his burdens and report to the supreme government. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 136. July 11th, H. to E. Defence of the practice of allowing vessels to touch at way points. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., i. 42-7. Sept. 11th, com. gen. to E. Asks him to order habilitados to send in their accounts to Herrera in two months, or he will appeal to Mexico. Reprimands him for exceeding his powers, using funds without Herrera's permission, treating H. as a subordinate and not as the gefe of all treasury branches, and not obeying the laws. Threatens to withdraw the comisario altogether if E. does not mend his ways. Accuses him of preventing the execution of Herrera's decree on the payment of duties, without authority to do so. H. was under no obligation to submit his orders or those of his superior to the gefe político. 'Watch also over those friars with their Spanish ideas.' The comisario must be supported, not opposed. In the appointment of a sub-comisario at Loreto, E. had also usurped authority. 'I can not permit you thus to interfere. The power of appointment rests exclusively with H. as my subordinate.' H. was not to be blamed for reporting these things, since he had positive orders to do so. Id., i. 23-34. Oct. 16th, H. to E. on the details of business, explaining his efforts to get along with an insufficient revenue. Complains of habilitados for not rendering accounts, and for drawing drafts on him when they knew he had no money. Protests against paying one company more than another; and claims that in case of urgent need the soldiers should be preferred to officials. Id., i. 56-60. Dec. 1st, H. complains that his orders are disregarded, and that Estrada refuses to render accounts. Repeats the complaint a little later, with threats to report to Mexico. Dec. 27th, 30th, orders from Mexico requiring half the revenues to be remitted to the national treasury! and that regular accounts be sent for publication in the Gazeta of Guadalajara. Id., i. 72-3, 89-91, 14.
