governor or captain, before we obey him we shall inform your royal person." This sentence, which Las Casas characterizes as a great though sweetened piece of impudence," and several others not in harmony with Cortés' own calculated report, were probably the cause for the disappearance of the letter before it reached the emperor.[1]
The messengers or procuradores left the port July 16,[2] and although ordered not to touch Cuba, lest Velazquez should learn of the mission, Montejo could not resist the temptation of taking a peep at his estates at Mariel de Cuba, a port close to Habana. Here they entered August 23, and took supplies and water. This could not of course be done in secret, and swelling with rumor the report reached Velazquez that his flag-ship had come ballasted with gold, to the value of two hundred and seventy thousand pesos. No less alarmed than furious at this proof of the perfidy he had so long feared, he despatched a fast sailing vessel with a strong force under Gonzalo de
- ↑ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 37, gives a long detail of its contents, particularly of the conclusion, wherein the bishop of Búrgos is pointed out as favoring his friends and relations in the distribution of Indian governments. Velazquez enjoyed his special favor in return for the large presents in gold and towns he had made, to the prejudice of the crown. Cortés, on reading the letter, was highly pleased with the eulogy bestowed upon himself, and promised to remember it when rewards came to be distributed, but he objected to the prominence given to the discoveries of Córdoba and Grijalva, 'sino á èl solo se atribuia cl descubrimiento, y la honra, ê honor de todo,' and wished to suppress the statement that one fifth of the profits were to be given to him. The men declined to hide anything from the king, and so Cortés no doubt made the messengers hide the letter. Tapia gives a brief synopsis of it, mentioning the objections raised against the bishop of Búrgos, and the resolution not to obey any orders contrary to their report till the king had replied to it — 'é para que otra cosa en contrario de lo que le escrebiamos no se hiciese, que S. M. sin saber de qué hacia mercedes, no las hiciese, estábamos prestos de morir é tener la tierra en su real nombre fasta ver respuesta de esta carta.' Relacion, in Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., ii. 566. Esta carta no vido el Emperador, porque, si la viera, no les sucederia ni á Cortés ni á sus consortes el negocio tan favorable como abajo se parecerá.' Las Casas, Hist. Ind., iv. 498.
- ↑ En una nao que . . . . despaché á 16 de julio del año de 1519, envié á V. A. muy larga y particular relacion.' Cortés, Cartas, 51: Oviedo, iii. 261.'En veinte y seis dias del mes de Julio . . . partieron de San Juan de Ulua.' Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 37. On the next page he says July 6th. The naming of Ulua as the port of departure shows also a carelessness of facts; yet Gomara says: 'Partieron . . . . de Aquiahuiztlā . . . . a veinta y seis.' Hist. Mex., 6. Still Cortés' letter, written so soon after, ought to be correct. Prescott accepts the 26th.
