honestly throughout the quarrel, especially in opposition to the statements of several Californians who remember the controversy.[1] It is my opinion, however, that the class of Californians represented by Alvarado, Osio, and Vallejo look at Herrera's acts through the colored glasses of political prejudice; and that among other classes the comisario was by no means unpopular.
In April 1827 Echeandía ordered a secret investigation of Herrera's administration, to be conducted by Zamorano. The proceedings were begun at San Diego the 30th of April, and afterwards continued at Monterey and Los Angeles in May and June. The main charge was that the comisario had, on his way to California, invested a portion of the $22,000 of territorial funds intrusted to his care in effects to be sold for his own account and profit, though it was not claimed apparently that there was any deficit in his accounts, or that the money thus improperly used had not been refunded.[2] Zamorano as fiscal reported the
- ↑ No one has anything to say in Herrera's favor. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 111-17, 132-46, is especially bitter in his criticism, charging H. with dishonesty, embezzlement, conspiracy, usurpation, insolence, and pretty much everything that was bad. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 122-3, is hardly less severe. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 62-3, tells us that H. 'did nothing but conspire and make trouble.' J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 91-2, represents H. as intriguing with the support of the padres to unseat Echeandía and put himself in power. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 282-6, describes the quarrel without attaching much blame to Herrera; and it is to be noted that Mrs. Ord, one of the clearest-headed Californian writers, personally friendly to Echeandía, expresses no opinion on the merits of the parties to this quarrel. Ocurrencias, MS., 20-1.
- ↑ Herrera, Causa contra el Comisario Sub-Principal de Californias, José Maria Herrera, 1827, MS.; also an abridged record in the archives. Capt. Guerra testified that of the $22,000 the Sta B. Co. had got only $3,600; knew not what had become of the rest; had heard that the money was landed at S. Blas, and only a part reshipped with goods supposed to have been purchased with that money. Maitorena had heard of the investment of public funds, and had seen in the possession of Luis Bringas certain bales of goods, which he judged to be the ones bought by H. In a letter of later date, Maitorena attempts to show some irregularities in the collection of duties from the Nile, in 1825. Juan Bandini reserved his formal testimony until the matter should come before the diputacion; but declared it to be a matter of public notoriety that H. had misapplied the public funds. Alf. Romualdo Pacheco noticed at S. Blas that only $6,500 of the $22,000 was reshipped, and was told by J. M. Padrés that H. had invested the balance in goods, having admitted as much to him, Padrés. It was a notorious fact that Bringas had sold the goods at the presidios, towns, and missions of Cal. Alf. Juan José Rocha confirmed
