History of California (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 7

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
​

CHAPTER VII.

RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.
1831.

APPOINTMENT OF VICTORIA ARRIVAL ECHEANDÍA'S DELAY COMMAND SURRENDERED BEGINNING OF A QUARREL GOLPE DE ESTADO SCHEMES OF PADRES AND PARTY VICTORIA'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNOR REFUSAL TO CONVOKE THE DIPUTACION MEMORIALS AND THREATS VICTORIA'S MANIFIESTO REPLIES OF BANDINI AND Pico ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THE DEATH PENALTY CASE OF ATANASIO THE ROBBERS AGUILAR AND SAGARRA EXECUTION OF RUBIO EXILE OF ABEL STEARNS VICTORIA AND ALCALDE DUARTB OF SAN JOSE TROUBLE AT Los ANGELES EXILE OF JOSE A. CARRILLO JOSE M. PADRES BANISHED PLOTS OF CARRILLO, BANDINI, AND Pico PRONUNCIAMIENTO OF SAN DIEGO ECHEANDÍA IN COMMAND ANGELES REVOLTS FIGHT NEAR CAHUENGA DEATH OF PACHECO AND A VILA VICTORIA SENT TO SAN BLAS RODRIGO DEL PLIEGO ACTION IN THE NORTH CARRILLO s EFFORTS IN CONGRESS.


Lieutenant-colonel Manuel Victoria was appointed March 8, 1830, to succeed José Maria Echeandía as gefe politico of Alta California, and three days later official notice was sent to the incumbent.[1] Victoria was then at Loreto, where for several years he had been comandante principal of Lower California; but nothing is known of his career on the peninsula, nor of his previous life beyond the current and probably accurate belief in California that he was a native of Acapulco, and commandant there in 1825, who had won his rank by personal bravery in the war of independence.[2] Antonio Garcia had previously been ​named to succeed Echeandía, and the substitution of Victoria is believed to have been due to the success of Bustamante in Mexico, and to Franciscan influence on the new administration. While there is no positive proof of the Californian friars' intrigues in the matter, yet Bustamante's revolution was widely regarded as a reactionary movement in favor of the old Spanish institutions. The padres were very bitterly opposed to the mission policy of Echeandía, or of the administration that he represented, and they openly rejoiced at the new appointment as a glorious 'victory' for their cause.[3]

Having notified Echeandía of his coming, and named a day for the transfer of office at San Diego, Victoria started northward from Loreto by land in the autumn of 1830, arriving at San Diego in December, or possibly in November. He was disappointed at not finding either the governor or any message from him; but a despatch sent post-haste to the north elicited from Echeandía a reply, to the effect that the command would be turned over at Monterey, the capital. A later despatch, however, named Santa Bárbara as the place, and thither Victoria went, arriving the 31st of December. Here he remained about three weeks, engaging in a sharp correspondence with Echeandía, some of whose orders he countermanded, though not yet legally invested with authority; but at last he came to Monterey, and on January 31, 1831, assumed the formal command, taking the oath in presence of the ayuntamiento, assembled for the purpose.[4]

​In explanation of the situation at the time of Victoria's arrival, of Echeandia’s strange conduct in delaying the transfer of command, and of the bitter controversy that now began between the Californians and their new ruler, I must here refer briefly to a subject which will require full treatment in a subsequent chapter, that of mission secularization. The reader is familiar with[5] the Mexican policy on that matter, with Echeandía’s investigation, experiments, and difficulties in attempting to carry out his instructions, and with the action of the diputacion in the summer of 1830 respecting a plan of secularization which was submitted to the national government for approval. Thus far proceedings had been strictly ​legal, and marked by no imprudent or hasty steps. The friars, however strongly opposed to secularization on general principles, had no just cause for complaint against Echeandía. There was now, however, a popular feeling in favor of the proposed changes far in advance of Echeandía's personal views, and largely due to the influence of José María Padrés, the newly arrived ayudante inspector. Padrés was a man of considerable ability: personally magnetic, and moreover a most radical republican. He soon became a leading spirit among the young Californians just becoming prominent in public life, intensified their nascent republicanism, taught them to theorize eloquently on the rights of man, the wrongs of the neophytes, and the tyranny of the missionaries; and if he also held up before the eyes of the Carrillos, Osios, Vallejos, Picos, Alvarados, Bandinis, and others bright visions of rich estates to be administered by them or their friends, their young enthusiasm should by no means be termed hypocrisy or a desire for plunder.

But events in Mexico seemed to favor the friars, and were not encouraging to the views of Padrés and his disciples. It is not apparent whether or not the success of Bustamante or its bearing on Californian matters was known in July and August 1830, the date of the diputacion's acts; but when the day of Victoria's arrival drew near, and no approval of the plan came from Mexico, Echeandía was persuaded, probably without much difficulty, to essay a golpe de estado. Accordingly he issued, January 6, 1831, a decree of secularization, which he took immediate steps to carry into execution before turning over the command to his successor. Victoria was known to be more a soldier than a politician, and it was hoped with the aid of the diputacion in some way to sustain the decree and reach a result favorable to the anti-mission party. Echeandía's act was wholly illegal, uncalled for, and unwise. It was simply a trick, and an absurd ​one. The opponents of Victoria were thus in the wrong at the beginning of the quarrel.[6]

While at Santa Bárbara Victoria heard of the decree of January 6th and prevented its publication in the south; while he reported the matter to the national authorities, denouncing Padrés, whom of course he had known well in Baja California, as the real author of the trick and as a man who was very dangerous to the best interests of the territory.[7] In the north, where the decree had been already published, the new ruler took immediate steps to prevent its execution. Nothing more need be said here of secularization,[8] but the wrath of the ayudante inspector and his party may well be imagined by the reader, and will be constantly apparent in the subsequent record.

Having assumed the command, Victoria issued the 1st of February an address to the people, a brief document, in which the author made known to his 'beloved fellow-citizens' his purpose to reform the evils that most afflicted the country, and his hope for cordial support from the inhabitants. "The laws must be executed, the government obeyed, and our institutions respected," he writes; "I have to favor honesty and to punish perversity, the first being in accord with my character, the second demanded by my honor and conscience."[9] All of this officer's communications, or at least all that have been preserved, were brief and to the point, showing the writer to be more of a soldier than politician, and lacking something of the usual Mexican bombast. Of his personal ​movements during the nine months of his stay in the north, we know but little, except what can be gathered from the dates of successive official documents to be noticed incidentally in the record about to be presented. He is said to have gone to San Francisco soon after taking the command, and subsequently to have spent some time on different occasions at Santa Clara.[10] In addition to his few letters on special topics, the governor made in June a general report on the industrial condition of California, a document which presents no matter for comment.[11] Echeandía retired to San Diego a few days after turning over the office, but did not yet leave the territory, as we shall see.

The annals of 1831, and of Victoria's rule, are confined to the revolutionary movement by which that rule was brought to an end, there being nothing else worthy of notice in the records of the year, so far at least as general history is concerned. The development of the revolution may best be explained by presenting as successive topics the several charges against the governor, which may be regarded as in a certain sense the causes of the popular feeling on the subject, though it is well to bear always in mind the chief cause, underlying all others as already shown. I begin with what was in reality the most serious and best founded accusation.

​Victoria neglected to convene the diputacion, and even when urged to do so, flatly refused, greatly to the disgust of the members and their friends, the most influential element of the population. His conduct in this respect was doubtless illegal as well as impolitic, and gave the Californians just cause for complaint. He knew, however, that the vocales were for the most part the followers of Padrés and the promoters of Echeandía's golpe de estado, regarding their desire to assemble as merely a continuation of the trick, and supposing with much reason that the sessions would be largely devoted to schemes of interference with his own policy and measures. On January 29th, the day of Victoria's arrival at Monterey, Echeandía had summoned the vocales to assemble in the interests of public tranquillity.[12] I have no doubt the plan was in some manner to insist, with the aid of the diputacion, on the carrying-out of the secularization scheme. Efforts to convene that body were continued all the spring and summer. At first the ayuntamiento of Monterey, aided to some extent by that of San José, was the medium of appeal, though the governor in February assembled that body to explain how inopportune had been the petitions of Alcalde Buelna, and warned the municipal authorities not to meddle with matters that did not concern them.[13] The 30th of July diputados Vallejo, Osio, Ortega, and Castro petitioned the governor directly to convoke the assembly, and apparently some of the southern members either signed this petition or sent in another similar one; but Victoria showed no signs of yielding.[14]

​The northern members repeated their petition September 11th, urging that the regular time for meeting was March 1st, claiming that urgent business required attention, and even threatening rather mysteriously, in case their request were denied, "to proceed according to law."[15] This brought out from Victoria on the 21st an address, or manifiesto, to the public. In this document he defined in a very straightforward manner his position, alluding to the criminal motives and seditious plans of the opposing faction, "personal interests disguised in the habiliments of philanthropy," declaring his intention to thwart the schemes of his predecessor, and reminding good citizens that the way to prosperity and happiness lay in the direction of submission to law, and not of sedition. He stated that a majority of the diputados had been illegally elected, that he had reported everything to the national authorities, without whose orders he would not convoke the assembly, and that he counted on resources unknown to his enemies.[16] In a report bearing the same date Victoria announced his suspension of the diputacion, and earnestly recommended the abolishment of all elective ayuntamientos and the restoration of military rule, except that certain judges might be appointed for Los Angeles and San José.[17] This radical overturning of all civil authority seemed a simple and effective measure to this honest soldier, who felt that he could preserve order more easily if ​the territory were made a mere military comandancia. Small wonder, however, that the Californian republicans were unprepared for such a change! The four diputados, Vallejo, Ortega, Osio, and Castro, sent, September 18th, a representation to Mexico, complaining of the refusal to convoke the diputacion, of his evident hostility to the federal system, and of several arbitrary acts to be noted later. The 7th of November they sent another memorial in reply to Victoria's manifiesto, in which they called upon the supreme government to protect the people against the governor's oppressive usurpations.[18] Juan Bandini, substitute congressman from California, also wrote a reply to Victoria's proclamation, dated at San Diego October 10th, in which he refuted the charge of illegality in the elections, and argued very eloquently against the governor's right to deprive the country of the services of its diputacion on account of mere suspicions respecting the members. Pio Pico, senior vocal of the diputacion, issued a similar protest.[19]

The administration of justice was a subject which early claimed the new ruler's attention. It had been much neglected by the easy-going Echeandía, and crime had gone unpunished. Criminal proceedings had been often instituted, as we have seen in the local presidial annals of the last six years, but penalties had been rarely inflicted with fitting severity. Victoria had strict ideas of discipline, and no doubt of his ability to enforce the laws. He is said to have boasted soon after his arrival at Monterey that before long he would make it safe for any man to leave his handkerchief or his watch lying in the plaza until he might ​choose to come for it. How he carried out his ideas in this direction will be apparent from a few causas célebres of the year.

The case of Atanasio was pending when Victoria came. Atanasio was an Indian boy less than eighteen years of age, a servant in sub-comisario Jimeno's office, who had in 1830 stolen from the warehouse property to the extent of something over $200. The prosecution was conducted by Fernandez del Campo, Padrés, and Ibarra as fiscales; and the last-named demanded, in consideration of the youth and ignorance of the culprit, as well as on account of the carelessness with which the goods had been exposed, a sentence of only two years in the public works. The asesor, Rafael Gomez, after having sent the case back to the fiscal for the correction of certain irregularities, rendered an opinion April 18th, in favor of the death penalty; and by order of the comandante general Atanasio was shot at 11 A. M. on the 26th.[20] Gomez was an able lawyer, and I suppose was technically correct in his advice, though the penalty seems a severe one. Naturally the Californians were shocked; and though an example of severity was doubtless needed, Victoria was not fortunate in his selection. The circumstance that led to the culprit's detection seems to have been his using some military buttons for gambling with his comrades; and the popular version of the whole affair has been that an Indian boy was shot by Victoria for stealing a few buttons.[21]

In May 1831 the warehouse at San Cárlos was robbed on three different occasions, perhaps entered three times the same night, by Simon Aguilar, a ​Mexican convict in the service of Gomez, and Eduardo Sagarra, a native of Lima. A neophyte boy, Andrés, furnished the keys, which he had managed to steal from Padre Abella, the complainant in the case. There was no doubt about the guilt of the accused, and the fiscal, Rodrigo del Pliego, demanded for the two men the death penalty, and for the boy, in consideration of his being only thirteen years old, two hundred blows. Gomez, the asesor, also decided that Aguilar and Sagarra should be shot, and that Andrés, after witnessing the execution, should receive one hundred blows, and be sent to the mission to work for six months, wearing a corma. The sentences were approved by Victoria, and executed May 28th at the presidio of Monterey.[22]

The famous Rubio case dates back to 1828. On the night of August 15th of that year, Ignacio Olivas and his wife, on returning from a fandango at San Francisco, found their little daughter aged five years, and son of one year, dead in their beds, the former having been outraged and both brutally treated. The soldier, Francisco Rubio, a vicious man who had been convicted of serious crimes while serving in the mission escoltas of Santa Inés and Solano, was suspected and arrested. The case was prosecuted in August and September by Lieutenant Martinez, and the testimony has been preserved. It was in evidence that Rubio had learned by inquiry that the parents were to attend the fandango without the children; that he knew how to open the doors; that tracks about the house agreed with his boot; that his clothing bore ​blood-stains at the time of his arrest; that he had tried to sell his shirt during the night; and that many of his actions had seemed strange and suspicious to his companions. Beyond his own statements and protestations of innocence, there was no evidence in his favor, or against any other person. Though circumstantial, the proofs were strong; sufficiently so, I think, to justify the severest penalty. The case, however, dragged its slow length along, with no perceptible progress, as was usual in California, through 1829 and 1830. Rubio was nominally imprisoned, but during much of the time seems to have worked as a servant about the presidio, with abundant opportunities for escape. When Victoria came he intrusted the prosecution to José María Padrés, who began active operations in May 1831. Alférez Vallejo, who had declined to serve as fiscal, now made some efforts in behalf of Rubio; but his testimony and that of others called in to substantiate it tended merely to show irregularity in one of the former proceedings, and that another man, having been charged with similar crimes at San Francisco, might be guilty in this instance. No new evidence was adduced in Rubio's favor. He was defended by Pliego, a friend of Victoria, who on account of technical irregularities, and because no one had seen his client commit the crime, asked only that some other penalty than death should be imposed. Padrés, an enemy of Victoria and friend of Vallejo, expressed no doubt of Rubio's guilt, but he also urged that imprisonment be substituted for death. Rafael Gomez reviewed the testimony at some length, pronounced the accused to be guilty, and recommended that he be shot behind the house of Olivas. The sentence was finally approved by Victoria and executed August 1st, at 11.30 A. M.[23]

The case of Rubio, as just related from the original ​records, would seem to be a very clear one, respecting which no blame could be imputed to Victoria; yet so bitter was the feeling against that official, that the execution has been almost uniformly regarded by Californians as a judicial murder, stamping Victoria as a blood-thirsty monster. The only reason for this strange belief, in addition to the popular feeling fostered by Vallejo and his friends, was the generally credited rumor that after Rubio's death an Indian confessed that he had committed the crime for which the innocent soldier had suffered. I am unable to say positively that this rumor, so confidently presented as truth by dozens of witnesses, was unfounded; but it may be noted that most persons speak indefinitely of the guilty Indian; that the few who venture on details of name, place, and date differ widely in such particulars; and finally that the later confession, if perfectly authentic, has no possible bearing on Victoria's action.[24]

Abel Stearns, an American but a naturalized citizen of Mexico, who had been in California since ​1829, was apparently a sympathizer with the party of Padrés and Vallejo; or at least he was so regarded by Victoria. He had a land grant in the San Joaquin Valley which required confirmation by the diputacion, and he was therefore anxious for a meeting of that body. This was his only offence, so far as I can ascertain; but for it Victoria ordered him to leave the country, refused to give or listen to any explanations, and merely bade him present his claims and complaints to the supreme government. The correspondence began in February. In July, Stearns was refused permission to visit San Francisco to attend to his business affairs, and on September 23d his passport was issued. He soon sailed from Monterey, but did not go farther than San Diego, or the frontier of Baja California.[25] Nothing can be said in defence of Victoria's arbitrary course in thus exiling a Mexican citizen without trial or specification of offence; but the provocation was I have no doubt much stronger than it appears in the written record, since Stearns was not a man disposed to submit quietly when his interests were threatened.

Another of Victoria's arbitrary proceedings was that against Mariano Duarte, alcalde of San José, in August and September. Duarte had, after consultation with Alcalde Buelna of Monterey, tried to induce the ayuntamiento to petition for the convoking of the diputacion. This was his chief offence, "one which has a very strong bearing upon the present political state of the territory," in Victoria's eyes; but there were others, brought forward by the other municipal officers who disliked the alcalde, and included in the investigation. Duarte had somewhat ​irregularly appointed certain regidores to fill vacancies, and had taken from the municipal funds compensation for teaching the pueblo school, whereas it had been the understanding that he was to teach for nothing — the estimated value of his services. Worse yet, Duarte allowed himself to be inveigled into a trap by his foes. A woman with more patriotism than modesty was induced to send the alcalde an amorous invitation, and he was surprised at her house by the watchful regidores. Rodrigo del Pliego was sent to San José to prosecute the case; and a little later Duarte was brought in irons to Monterey to be tried by a military court. There was no trouble in proving the truth of the only charge to which Victoria attached much importance, that of laboring to secure a meeting of the diputacion, and all went well for the governor until the opinion of the asesor was rendered September 30th. This opinion was to the effect that the charges against Duarte had been substantiated, but that in urging the ayuntamiento to coöperate with others in demanding a convocation of the assembly he had done no criminal act, and that as to the other offences a military court had no jurisdiction, and they must be sent to the supreme court in Mexico. Victoria seems to have made no effort to continue the prosecution in defiance of law.[26]

There was trouble likewise at Los Angeles, though the alcalde of that town, Vicente Sanchez, was a partisan and protégé of Victoria, being a man moreover who always had a quarrel on hand with somebody. In January Echeandía, acting on the legal advice of Gomez, had declared Sanchez as a diputado not competent to hold the place of alcalde, ordering that the first regidor take the place provisionally and a ​new alcalde be chosen.[27] There is no record of immediate action on this order; but on April 18th the ayuntamiento deposed Sanchez, putting Regidor Juan Alvarado in his place. At first Victoria did not object to the change, but a few days later, probably learning that it had been in some way in the interest of Echeandía's party, he discovered that the movement had been a revolutionary and illegal one. So he wrote a severe reprimand to Alvarado, ordered him to restore Sanchez to office, and announced that he would soon come down to Los Angeles to make an investigation. The order was obeyed and Sanchez was reinstated.[28] In June, for reasons that do not appear, Victoria saw fit to revive the matter by sending Lieutenant Argüello to make investigations and administer rebukes. The 21st of July he sent back the sumario that had been formed by Argüello, and ordered that the regidores Alvarado and Perez, with six other citizens of Los Angeles, should be put in prison. They were never released by Victoria's order.[29]

One of Alcalde Sanchez's quarrels was with José Antonio Carrillo. The exact nature of the trouble is not explained; but in March Carrillo was taken into custody as a defrauder. He escaped, but gave himself up to the comandante of Santa Bárbara on March 21st, and was kept in confinement there for some fifty days. At the end of that time he was sent down to San Diego, and immediately banished to San Vicente on the frontier by Victoria's order. How Carrillo had offended the governor is not recorded, but it is to be ​presumed that he had taken a prominent part in sending memorials from the south in the interest of the diputacion. He protested earnestly against his exile in June and July, demanding an opportunity to return, under bonds, to vindicate his honor; but all he could obtain was permission to move about from place to place on the frontier without returning to California while his case was pending. Nevertheless he did return, as we shall see.[30]

Finally José María Padrés, whom Victoria justly regarded as the leading spirit in the opposition to his measures, was summarily sent out of the territory without form of trial. In all his communications the governor had named Padrés as the cause of the country's ills.[31] Early in the summer he had been sent to San Francisco, where it was thought he could do less harm than at the capital; but he continued his plottings — so believed Victoria — in connection with Vallejo and several young Californians who were living there ostensibly engaged in hunting otter. In October the order for his banishment was issued, and early in November he was sent by sea to San Blas.[32] Ofcourse Victoria had no authority for such an act.

I have thus catalogued the acts of Victoria's ​administration, and they leave no doubt as to what manner of man he was. Personally brave, honest, energetic, straightforward, and devoted to what he deemed the best interests of the territory, he was yet more a comandante general than a gefe político. His idea of his duty was to preserve order and administer justice by military methods, removing without regard to constitutional technicalities such obstacles as might stand in the way of success in carrying out his good intentions. All the Californians in their narratives credit him with personal courage, but with no other good quality, save that a few admit he paid better attention to the comfort as well as the discipline of his soldiers than had his predecessors. Nearly all, after mentioning more or less accurately some of the acts which I have chronicled, express the opinion that Victoria was a cruel, blood-thirsty monster, at whose hands the lives of all honest citizens were in danger, some adding that he was dishonest and avaricious as well, and others asserting that he was a full-blooded negro. So strong is popular prejudice, fostered by a few influential men.[33] There is a notable lack of missionary correspondence in the records of 1831, and I find only one contemporary expression of the padres' opinion respecting Victoria's acts, except that of course they approved his abrogation of the secularization decree. Padre Duran, in the epilogue of his comments upon that measure, ​after affirming that the leading Californians aimed solely at securing mission plunder and rejoicing at Victoria's opportune arrival and suspension of the law, wrote: "Interested parties, including some vocales of the diputacion, sure of their prey, were disappointed, and disappointment turned into hatred for the equitable Victoria. Never had they pardoned this just chief for having rescued the booty already within their grasp. They began to intrigue and hold secret meetings, and for ten months of 1831 symptoms of sedition have not ceased to keep the illustrious chief in constant trouble. They sought to force him to convene the diputacion, in order that with a semblance of legality they might accomplish their desires, ... ungrateful for the sacrifices of the poor Indians; but Victoria never consented; and in November they proclaimed a plan of attack." The foreign residents are equally silent,[34] but I suspect that their views were more favorable to the governor than they cared to admit generally to the strong element opposing him. The Californians have weakened their cause by their unfounded and exaggerated attacks on Victoria's personal character, for politically the cause was a strong one. Victoria went far beyond the authority of his office, in refusing to convoke the assembly, in trying an alcalde by court-martial, and in banishing Mexican citizens without forms of trial. He was not in sympathy with constitutional government; and his acts were not to be defended by reason of the reactionary character of the administration that appointed him, the trick that was attempted by Padrés and Echeandía, the formidable opposition which forced him to a more arbitrary policy than he would otherwise have shown, or the promptness and frankness with which he submitted all to the national authorities. Perhaps his proceedings might even have justified revolt after a ​failure to obtain relief from Mexico. Under other circumstances, Victoria might have been an excellent ruler for California.

Thus far San Francisco in the extreme north had been the centre of opposition to Victoria, but the final revolt broke out in the extreme south at San Diego.[35] Some prominent men of the north are of opinion that the abajeños should not have all the glory, but I fear there is hardly enough of it to bear division. José Antonio Carrillo, supposed to be in exile on the frontier, but who came secretly to the vicinity of San Diego in November, was the real instigator of the revolt, seconded by Abel Stearns, another exile; but the active and ostensible leaders were Juan Bandini, diputado suplente to congress and sub-comisario of hacienda, and Pio Pico, senior vocal of the diputacion. Bandini in his history gives but a general account of the affair, but Pico enters into some detail, both of the actual revolt and of preliminary movements.[36] After ten or twelve days of preparatory plotting, Pico, Bandini, and Carrillo, on November 29th, drew up and signed a formal pronunciamiento, and that evening ​with about a dozen companions started out to take possession of the presidio and garrison. Doubtless by a previous understanding with the soldiers, no resistance was made, though the forms of a surprise were gone through, the arms and barracks secured, and the officers placed under arrest.[37]

Next day the soldiers gave in their adhesion to the plan readily enough, but the officers, especially captains Portilla and Argüello, showed considerable reluctance. They shared the feelings of the rebels against Victoria — so they said, Portilla perhaps not quite truthfully — but they felt that for military men in their position to engage in open rebellion against their comandante general was a serious matter. At first they declined to do more than remain neutral under arrest; but finally they were induced to promise active coöperation on condition that Echeandía would accept the command. What part Echeandía had taken, if any, in the previous plottings cannot be known; but after much hesitation, real or pretended,[38] he consented to head the movement. The plan, slightly amended, was now made to embrace substantially the following points: the suspension of Victoria, the vesting by the diputacion of the political and military command in separate persons, and the provisional resumption by Echeandía of both commands until such act of the diputacion or the decision of the national government. This pronunciamiento was ​finally signed December 1st by Echeandía, the three original signers, and all the officials, whose names I give with a translation of the document.[39] The reader ​who may have the patience to examine this state paper, California's first pronunciamiento, if we except that of the convict Solis in 1829, will find in it a good ​many words. It was apparently the production of Juan Bandini.

In a day or two the pronunciados, with about fifty men under Portilla, set out northward, Argüello being left behind in command of San Diego. The little army arrived at Los Angeles December 4th, learning now, or perhaps the day before, that Victoria was approaching from the north and was not far distant. Of occurrences at the pueblo since the imprisonment of eight citizens by Alcalde Sanchez at Victoria's order, as already related, we know very little; but it would seem that there had been further trouble, and that more citizens, perhaps many more, had been added to the eight in jail, Andrés Pico being one of the new victims. The captives were at once set free by the San Diegans, and the obnoxious alcalde, Vicente Sanchez, was in turn put in irons. The Angelinos accepted the plan with great enthusiasm, and next morning the rebel army, probably numbering about one hundred and fifty, marched out to meet Victoria, who at the same time started with about thirty men from San Fernando.

The date of Victoria's departure from Monterey is unknown, as are his motives, and most details respecting his southward march. He must have started before the proceedings of November 29th could have been known at the capital; but he probably was warned of prospective troubles by letters from southern friends.[40] Full of confidence as usual in his

​ability to restore order, the governor set out with Alférez Pliego and ten or twenty men, leaving Zamorano, his secretary, in command at Monterey. Even on arriving at Santa Bárbara he seems to have got no definite information of the San Diego movement; but he was with some difficulty persuaded by Guerra to increase his little force before going to Los Angeles, and was accordingly joined by Captain Romualdo Pacheco and about a dozen soldiers.[41] His entire force was now not over thirty men, nearly all I suppose of the San Blas and Mazatlan companies. He expected no fight; but in case trouble should arise, he doubtless counted on the aid of Portilla and his Mazatecos. Before he reached San Fernando, however, messengers overtook him from Santa Bárbara with definite news of the open revolt at San Diego, in letters from the rebel leaders to the Carrillo brothers, which by advice of Guerra they had forwarded to put him on his guard.[42] At San Fernando on December 4th, Padre Ibarra had not heard of the revolt at San Diego, and a messenger sent in haste to the pueblo brought back word from Alcalde Sanchez that at sunset there were no signs of revolution. Later in the evening, however, when the revolutionists arrived from the south, releasing the prisoners and locking up Sanchez, a brother of the latter is said to have escaped with the news to San Fernando. And thus next morning the hostile armies marched out from the ​pueblo and mission respectively, the smaller force starting earlier or moving more rapidly than the other, since they met only a few miles from Los Angeles in the direction of Cahuenga.

Exactly what occurred at this unnamed battle-field on the forenoon of the 5th, so far as details are concerned, will never be known. The salient results were that two men, Captain Pacheco on the one side and José María Ávila on the other, were killed. Victoria was severely wounded. Portilla's force retreated to Los Angeles and to Los Nietos, and the governor was carried by his men to San Gabriel. After a careful study of all the testimony extant, I venture to present some additional particulars as worthy of credence. Portilla with his 150 men had halted on high ground to await Victoria's approach. Carrillo of the leading rebels was with the army; but Echeandía, Pico, and Bandini had remained behind. Victoria, approaching with his thirty soldiers, was urged by Pacheco not to risk an attack without reënforcements and additional preparations; but he promptly, perhaps insultingly, disregarded the captain's counsels.[43] He was brave and hot-headed, he did not believe Portilla's Mazatecos would fight against their comrades, and he attached little importance to the citizen rebels. Riding up within speaking distance, the governor was commanded by Portilla to halt, and in reply peremptorily ordered Portilla to come over with his soldiers to support his commander and the legitimate authorities. Noting a disposition to parley rather than to obey his order, Victoria ordered his men to fire; and some shots were fired, perhaps over the heads of the foe, since nobody was hurt. Portilla and his men now ran away, perhaps after one discharge of their muskets, and the Angelinos followed them; but two or three of the ​latter — who had been in the pueblo jail, had personal grievance against Victoria, and were ashamed of their companions' cowardice — made a dash against the foe before retreating. José María Ávila was at the head of this party, and he first met Pacheco, whom he shot in the back with a pistol as the two horses were carried past each other by their impetus, after mutually parried thrusts of sword and lance by the respective riders. Pacheco fell dead with a bullet in his heart.[44] Ávila now rushed upon Victoria; Tomás Talamantes was close behind him, and on the other side at least two soldiers defended the governor. Of the ensuing struggle, which probably did not last three minutes, it is not strange that there are many popular versions; but Victoria received several lance-wounds. A soldier was shot in the foot. Ávila after a desperate resistance was unhorsed and killed, shot perhaps by one of the soldiers,[45] and Talamantes, the only one of the pronunciados except Ávila who came into contact with the foe, escaped unhurt. Victoria's men attempted no pursuit, but bore the wounded governor to San Gabriel. Had it not been for his wounds, Victoria would have ​retaken Los Angeles without difficulty; and it is by no means unlikely that he would have crushed the rebellion altogether. Ávila and Talamantes had deposed the governor of California; and others had contributed nothing more potent than words.[46]

​There is little more to be said of the revolution or other events of 1831. Some citizens who took no part in the fight carried the bodies of Pacheco and Ávila to the pueblo, where funeral services were performed next day. The fugitive residents had recovered from their fright and returned to their homes, while Echeandía with a part of Portilla's veterans had also come to town from the camp at Los Nietos. The wounded governor lay at San Gabriel, in danger of death, as was thought, tended by Joseph Chapman as amateur surgeon, and by Eulalia Perez as nurse, if we may credit the old lady's statement.[47]. His men, with two or three exceptions, had adhered to the plan or did so very soon; there was no possibility of further resistance; and this very day, December 6th, it is probable that he entered into negotiations through messengers with Echeandía, and made a formal surrender.[48] On the 9th he had an interview with Echeandía at the mission, at which he asked to be sent to Mexico, promising to interfere no more in the affairs of California. The general consented; and on the same day wrote and despatched to the north several letters, all of similar purport, in which he narrated all that had occurred, explained his own connection with the revolution, and summoned the diputacion to assemble immediately at Los Angeles to decide according to the plan on the persons to be intrusted with the political and military command.[49]

​About December 20th, Victoria left San Gabriel.[50] On his way south he spent some days at San Luis Rey with Padre Antonio Peyri, who decided to leave California with the fallen governor. Meanwhile Juan Bandini at San Diego made a contract with John Bradshaw and Supercargo Thomas Shaw of the American ship Pocahontas to carry Victoria to Mazatlan for $1,600 in silver, to be paid before setting sail;[51] and the exile, arriving on the 27th, went immediately on board the ship, which did not sail, however, for twenty days. I have before me an autograph letter addressed by Victoria to Captain Guerra on the 31st from on board the Pocahontas still in port,[52] in which he expresses confidence that his own acts will meet the approval of the national government, and that relief for the ills that afflict California will not be long delayed. His wounds were rapidly healing, and but for grief at the fate of his compadre Pacheco and the bereavement of the widow, he would be a happy man. He urged Guerra to keep his friends the Carrillos if possible from accepting the new plan. The vessel sailed on January 17, 1832, with Victoria and two servants, Padre Peyri and several neophyte boys, and Alférez Rodrigo del Pliego.[53] On February 5th,

​having reached San Blas, Victoria wrote a letter to the Mexican authorities, in which, having told over again the events of the past year, he proceeded to explain the plans of Echeandía and the plotting diputacion. The result must inevitably be the utter ruin, not only of the missions, but of all the interests of California, and there was great danger of an attempt to separate the territory from Mexico.[54] July 10, 1832, he wrote again from Mexico to Guerra, stating that the government had at first intended to send him back to California, but had changed that plan. The wound in his chest still made his life miserable. He spoke of his strict obedience, of his patriotism, and his sacrifices; and predicted that "the wicked are not to prevail forever;" but he admitted having "committed the fault of not knowing how to satisfy political passions or to act in accordance with party spirit."[55]

At the time of writing the letter just referred to, Victoria was about to start for Acapulco, where he was on March 9, 1833; and that is the last I know of him. I append no biographical sketch, because all ​that is known of him is contained in this chapter. The Californians as a rule have nothing to say in his favor; but the reader knows how far the popular prejudice was founded in justice. I have already expressed the opinion that under ordinary circumstances Victoria would have been one of California's best rulers.[56]

Of political events in the south in 1831, after Victoria's abdication, there is nothing to be recorded, except that Echeandía held the command, both political and military, and all were waiting for the diputacion to assemble early in January. In the north the news of the revolutionary success arrived about the middle of December. San Francisco on the 19th, San José on the 22d, and Monterey on the 26th, went through the forms of adhesion to the San Diego plan.[57]

​At least certain officials, civil and military, are made to appear in the legislative records of the next year as having signed the plan, with remarks of approbation on the dates mentioned. Rafael Gomez, the asesor, apprehensive of personal danger to himself as a partisan of Victoria, went on board the Russian bark Urup and tried to induce the captain to carry him to Sitka; but as he had no passport, his request was denied and he was set on shore at San Francisco.[58] The northern members, Vallejo and others, with Secretary Alvarado, started late in December for the south in response to Echeandía's summons to be present at the meeting of the diputacion.

Minor local events, with general remarks on such institutions and topics as are not very closely connected with or necessary to a full understanding of general annals, I propose to present once for all for the whole period of 1831-40, at the end of this volume. Another class of general topics, more purely historical in their nature, and more readily adapting themselves to chronological treatment, such as mission affairs, commerce, foreign relations, and Indian affairs, I shall group as before in chapters covering each a period of five years,[59] deeming this arrangement a much more satisfactory and convenient one for the reader than would be a more minute chronological subdivision. I shall of course refer to these topics as often and as fully as may be necessary to illustrate the annals of any particular year; but for 1831 I find no need for such reference, beyond what I have already said of ​secularization to show the cause of the popular feeling against Victoria.

In addition, however, to what I have written about the occurrences of 1831 in California, there remains something to be said of what was being done in Mexico for California, that is, of the labors of Cárlos Carrillo, who had been elected in October 1830 to represent the territory in congress.[60] Don Cárlos reached Mexico in April 1831, after a flattering reception at San Blas and at other points on the way, and he was somewhat active in behalf of his constituents, in comparison at least with his predecessors, so far as we may judge from his own letters.[61] He may be regarded as the representative rather of Captain José de la Guerra than of the Californians, acting largely on that gentleman's advice; but it would have been difficult to choose a wiser counsellor. Carrillo complained to the national government of the arbitrary and unwise acts of the rulers sent to California, resulting to a great extent from the distance of the territory from Mexico. His proposed remedy was the separation of the political and military power, which should be vested in two persons, and his views on this subject met with some encouragement from the president and ministers, who even broached to Don Cárlos the expediency of accepting for himself the civil command. California's urgent need for an organic law was presented, as also the necessity of establishing courts of justice, and regulating the administration of finance. It was complained, moreover, that a great injustice had been done in the promotion of Mexican officers like Zamorano and Pacheco to captaincies over the heads of Californians who had grown gray in the service. Carrillo requested the territorial diputacion to petition congress for the reforms for ​which he was working, including the appointment, or rather paying, of two competent teachers.[62]

Carrillo was a stanch partisan of the missionaries in these days, reflecting in that respect as others the sentiments of his brother-in-law, and therefore a large part of his correspondence was devoted to topics elsewhere treated. To the missions also was devoted, or to a closely allied matter, his exposition on the pious fund;[63] but this document merits at least a mention here, not only as containing a somewhat fair presentment of the country's general condition and needs, but as the first production of a Californian writer which was ever printed in form of book or pamphlet. Don Cárlos was an enthusiastic admirer of his native province, with great ideas of its destiny under proper management. He thought he was rapidly communicating his enthusiasm to the Mexican authorities, and on the point of success with his proposed reforms. Perhaps he was disposed to exaggerate his success; for the only evidences I find of Mexican attention to California at this time are a few slight mentions of statistical or financial matters in the regular reports of the departments.[64]

Notes[edit]

  1. ↑ Supt. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 6–7. Victoria's appointment and Minister Facio's communication of Mar. llth to Echeandía.
  2. ↑ Com. at Acapulco 1825. Gac. Mex., June 15, 1825. In June 1825, when Victoria was about to leave Acapulco for Loreto, Enrique Virmoud pro- nounced him, in a letter to Guerra, 'un sujeto de las mejores prendas.' Guerra, Doc., MS. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 160–2, says he failed to gain the confidence and esteem of the people in L. Cal.; but not much importance is to be attached to this statement.
  3. ↑ See p. 108 this vol., with quotations from the statements of President Sanchez on this subject.
  4. ↑ Robinson, Life in Cal., 97, says V. arrived at Sta B. on Jan. 10th. The rather meagre official correspondence on V.'s arrival and assumption of the command is as follows: Jan. 14, 1831, V. to E., complaining of the delay in turning over the office, and of the secularization decree. St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 35–6; Jan, 19th, V. to min. of rel., narrating all that had occurred since his departure from Loreto, including the matter of secularization. Sup. Govt St. Pap.. MS., viii. 8-10; Jan. 19th, E. to V., in reply to letter of 14th, reserving full explanations for a personal interview, but complaining of V.'s conduct in opposing his acts without legal authority, and announcing his intention to await his arrival at Mont. instead of marching to Sta B. as he had been ready to do. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 76-8. Jan. 29th-31st, summons to ayuntamiento, and E.'s announcements of having given up the command. Id., xiv. 25; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 89; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 5-6: Id., S. José, MS., iii. 94.

    On the same topic a few extra-official statements may also be noted. Bandini. Hist. Cal., MS., 72-3, tells us that V. on his arrival impressed the peopile of S. Diego as a simple, unostentatious man with benevolent ideas — but they were soon undeceived. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 137-8; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 160-2; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 111; and Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 168, state that on his way V. called on P. Peyri, at San Luis Rey, by whom he was most hospitally entertained, from whom he borrowed $6,000 more or less, to whom he promised all that the friars desired, and who at once wrote to his associates 'ya lo tenemos en el manguillo.' No doubt relations were most friendly between the two, but the authors named are bitterly prejudiced against V. and all his acts. Vallejo and Alvarado say he got large suns also at S. Juan and S. Gabriel — in fact, that avarice was one of his weak points, and that the padres were willing to buy him. In his diary of Ocurrencias Curiosas, 1830-1, MS., Guerra notes the presence of V. at Sta B. on Jan. 7th; declines to make predictions about his prospective rule; but says he seems a great friend of Pacheco, has very judicious views on the subject of missions; and in stature and flesh bears some resemblance to Echeandía. Carrillo (J.), Doc., MS., 33. Mrs Ord remembers that V., instead of lodging as was customary at the comandante's house, went straight to the mission. Here Guerra went to call on the new governor, showing him every attention, and presenting his daughter, the writer. Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-41. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 162-4, says that V. arrived unexpectedly at Monterey, dismounting before the gov.'s house, and demanding, in an abrupt and offensive manner, an immediate surrender of the office. Echeandía promised the transfer for 9 A. M. next morning, and V. went to S. Cárlos to sleep.

  5. ↑ See chap. iv., this volume.
  6. ↑ In a letter to the padres dated Nov. 18, 1832, E. says that V. factiously removed him from the command, and that he gave it up to save the country from disturbances (!), little thinking V. would 'audaciously prevaricate and break his oath.' St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 61. To Figueroa, on Mar. 19, 1833, he says that V. treated him with the greatest contempt in matters of government. Id., ii. 55. The only defence of E. and his friends is the justice of their general views on the mission question and the Indians' rights, which of course has no real bearing on the matter at issue.
  7. ↑ Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8-10.
  8. ↑ The subject is fully treated for the years 1831-5 in chap. xi.-xii., this volume, q. v.
  9. ↑ Victoria, Manifestacion del Gefe Político de la Alta California á sus habitantes, 1831, MS.
  10. ↑ Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 137-40, speaks of a party given in V.'s honor at the house of Lieut Martinez, at which politics was more or less discussed. Amador, Mem., MS., 122, mentions a tour of inspection before settling at the capital. Apr. 7th, José J. Gomez writes to Juan Bandini that V. had arrived at Monterey (from the north?) the day before, and was talking of going south soon. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 18. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 7-8, tells a story to the effect that V. attempted to prosecute himself and José Castro for the part they had taken in publishing the secularization decree, authorizing Pliego, their enemy, to commence criminal proceedings. But when summoned — so says A. — they rode up before Pliego's office on horseback, refused to hear the documents read, and dashed off to Sta Clara. V. subsequently treated them very well, however, giving them a profitable license to take otter at S. Francisco.
  11. ↑ Victoria, Informe General sobre California, 1830, MS., dated June 7th. A general report on government with recommendations of reform may also be mentioned under date of Sept. 21st. Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 146-9.
  12. ↑ Jan. 29, 1831, E. at the request of the ayunt. of Monterey in extra session, to José Ortega, Tiburcio Castro, M. G. Vallejo, and suplente Francisco Haro in place of A. M. Osio. Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 88; Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 216; Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 30-1. Probably a similar summons was sent to other members.
  13. ↑ Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 31-4, 38-40. Sessions Jan. 29th; Feb. 5th, 18th; Aug. 3d, 4th. Also vague allusions in the proceedings against Duarte, the alcalde of S. José. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., 14-51. Of the Duarte case I shall speak a little later.
  14. ↑ The petition is alluded to in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 305-9, 332, but no details are given. On Aug. 24th V. writes to Alcalde Sanchez of Los Angeles: 'As you are probably on good terms with Pico, persuade him to withdraw his petition for convoking the dip... It is my privilege to convene the assembly when I find it necessary; and up to the present time it has not been so; for I have just reasons which require me to await the decision of the sup. govt on my inquiries.' Id., i. 329-30. Sept. 7th, V. writes a very curt and plain letter to Juan Bandini in reply to his of Aug. 7th. The subject is ostensibly financial matters, but it is apparent that Bandini was reckoned among the enemies of the new gov. on general principles. Dept. Rec., ix. 43-5.
  15. ↑ Petition dated S. Francisco, in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 330-2.
  16. ↑ Victoria, Manifiesto á los Habitantes de California. 21 de Setiembre, 1831, MS.; Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 245; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 3; Bandini, Doc., MS. 16. V. expressed like sentiments in a letter of Oct. 24th to the alcalde of Los Angeles, copied in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 335-6.
  17. ↑ Sept. 21, 1831, V. to min. of justice, in Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 146-9. The writer claimed that there were few if any persons fit for alcaldes, and that the offices were sought mainly for purposes of personal gain or revenge.
  18. ↑ Copies of these documents in Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 215, 238, 241.
  19. ↑ Bandini, Contestacion á la Alocucion del Gefe Político D. Manuel Victoria, 1831, MS.; Pico, Protesta al Manifiesto de Don Manuel Victoria, 1831, MS., dated Oct. 15th. Oct. 17th, J. M. Padrés in a private letter congratulates Vallejo and the other deputies on their efforts to throw off the ugly epithet of 'seditious' applied by the gefe político. He thinks the southern deputies have failed to do their whole duty. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 239.
  20. ↑ Atanasio, Causa Criminal contra el Indio Atanasio y ejecucion del reo, 1831, MS.
  21. ↑ Estévan de la Torre, José M. Amador, Jesus Pico, Inocencia Pico de Ávila, José J. Vallejo, Juan B. Alvarado, and others give substantially this version. I have no space for minor variations, most of which are absurdly inaccurate. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 165-6, says that Gomez sent a despatch to stay the execution an hour after the boy had been shot; and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 143, that Atanasio was a servant of Pliego, caused to be condemned by his master without the proper legal forms, and without any specification of the crime.
  22. ↑ Records of the case in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxiii. 8-11. Notice of the execution in Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 25; Guerra, Doc., MS., v. 102. Notices by P. Sarría of spiritual consolations and burial in the presidial cemetery of these two men, and also of Atanasio. Nos. 2784, 2892-3, in the register of burials at Monterey, copied in Torre, Remin., MS., 25-6. Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 11, witnessed the execution and the flogging administered to the boy. So did Rafael Pinto, Apunt., MS., 6-8, who was a boy at the time, and who received a terrible flogging from his brother-in-law, in order that he might never forget the day nor the solemn lesson taught by the event! Amador, Mem., MS., 122-6, tells us that one of the padres interceded most earnestly with Victoria for a pardon.
  23. ↑ Rubio, Causa Criminal por Asesinatos y Estupro, 1828-31, MS.
  24. ↑ Besides being a partisan of Padrés in the general controversy, Vallejo had a personal grievance, arising from the fact that Victoria had condemned him to 8 days' arrest for insubordination in refusing to serve as fiscal in another case. Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 18-19. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 140-7, says that he as prosecuting attorney informed Victoria that the signatures of the witnesses against Rubio were forgeries; that he and Padrés offered to aid Rubio to escape, but he refused; that the execution was an outrage; and that the real culprit confessed the crime in 1833. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 171, 183, iv. 81, regards the prosecution as a conspiracy against Rubio; and both he and Vallejo state that great reverses of fortune overtook Lieut Martinez at the time of Rubio's death, and were commonly regarded as divine punishments. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 165-72, gives some particulars, more pathetic than probable, of the execution, and tells us that 6 or 7 years later Vallejo at Sonoma learned that Roman, a neophyte of S. Rafael, had committed the crime, and sent Sergt Piña to shoot him. Gabriel Castro in 1876 gave one of my agents a narrative in which I put no confidence, with minute details of the arrest and confession of Roman at S. Francisco, where he died in prison of syphilis. Ignacio Cibrian also gave a somewhat different version. In the evidence it appeared that a little brother of the victims said that a fierce coyote had come and killed the children; and Amador, Mem., MS., 122-6, implies that Rubio's nickname of 'Coyote' was the main ground of his accusation. J. J. Vallejo, Remin., MS., 112, tells us that Victoria was moved by the counsels of the padres and by his hatred of Padrés, who protected Rubio. The versions of Pinto, Pico, Weeks, Torre, and Galindo need no special notice. None doubt that Rubio was the victim of Victoria's oppression.
  25. ↑ Correspondence between V. and Stearns in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 321-9; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 102, 106-7. S. had, however, since Oct. 1830, a quarrel on hand with Ex-alcalde Soberanes, for disrespect to whom he had been imprisoned, and justly as the asesor decided. Monterey Arch., MS., i. 26-7. Sept. 14, 1831, V. to min. of rel., accuses S. of pernicious conduct, of plotting with Padrés to have the dip. meet, of trying to go to S. Francisco to join the other plotters, and of being a vagabond dependent on Capt. Cooper. Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 145.
  26. ↑ Duarte, Causa Criminal seguida contra el Alcalde de S. José, Mariano Duarte, 1831, MS. Lieut Ibarra was Duarte's defender, but his argument was devoted to showing his client to be an ignoramus. There is nothing in the narratives of Californians on this affair that deserves notice, though many mention it in their charges against Victoria. The decision of Gomez on the legality of the case was subsequently affirmed in Mexico.
  27. ↑ Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 84-5.
  28. ↑ April 21st, 23d, V. to Alvarado. Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 99-102. The com. of Sta B. reports having felt some alarm when he first heard of Sanchez's removal, but soon learned that no harm was intended. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 9-10. April 25th, Alvarado to V., saying that Sanchez had been reinstated. April 26th, Sanchez to V., complaining of his wrongs at the hands of foes. Regidor José Perez was arrested, but let out on bail. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., iii. 54-5.
  29. ↑ Leg. Rec., MS., i. 307-8, 349-50; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 108-10. The six citizens were Tomás Talamantes, Francisco Sepúlveda, José María Ávila, Máximo Alanis, Demesio Dominguez, and José María Aguilar. Capt. Barroso took Argüello's place in August.
  30. ↑ Correspondence on Carrillo's case from March to August, in Valle, Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., 17; Leg. Rec., MS., i. 302-3, 313-20; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 32; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 14-16, 18; Ord, Ocurencias, MS., 43-4. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 169-70, erroneously says Bandini was banished with Carrillo, and the two wrote a manifiesto, which was sent north. Some one put a copy under Victoria's pillow, and a reward was offered for his detection.
  31. ↑ Particularly in his report to the min. of rel. of Sept. 21st, in Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 149-52.
  32. ↑ July 24th, Padrés at S. Francisco writes to Stearns, advising him to go to Mex. with his complaints against V. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 234. Sept. 14th, V. to min. of war. Says that P. was sent to Bodega to make an inspection: but that he talked very freely to the Russians against the Mex. and Cal. govt. Dept. Rec., MS. ix. 144. Oct. 17th, P. congratulates Vallejo on his oppositin to V. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 239. Oct. 19th, P. is to sail on the Catlina. Nov. 8th, he is to sail on the schooner Margarita. Id., i. 242; Dept. Rec., MS., ix. 53, 61. Figueroa, Manifiesto, 3-4, speaks of P.'s influence in favor of revolt. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 174-5, says P. left Monterey Dec. 8th, and that V. before exiling him had tried to buy him off. Both this author and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 142-7, say that P. left Cal. vowing to oust V., and in possession of news from Mex. that made him think it would not be very difficult.
  33. ↑ I shall give later references to all the Californian writers who have treated of Victoria's rule. Their sentiments are so uniform, that it is not necessary to cite individual opinions. In the memorial of the diputados to the Mex. govt of Sept. 18th, Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 215, 238, the charges against V. are his exile of Carrillo and Stearns, his arrest of Duarte, his refusal to convoke the diputacion, his general opposition to the federal system, and his insults to diputados and inhabitants. A very complete résumé of V.'s acts and troubles, made up from his despatches and those of Echeandía and others, is found in Alaman, Sucesos de California en el año de 1831, MS., the same being an appendix to the minister's instructions to Gov. Figueroa in 1832. The whole subject is also fully treated in Vallejo and Argüello, Expediente sobre las Arbitrariedades de Victoria, MS., presented to the dip. on Feb. 17, 1832. To the usual charges Bandini, Apuntes Políticos, 1832, MS., adds the sending of some Angelinos far among the savages toward Sonora to drive stock for a favorite padre of the governor's, tampering with the mails at Monterey, and abrogating the faculties of hacienda employees to the prejudice of the administration.
  34. ↑ Duran, Notas y Com., MS., epilogue. Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., 15, merely says that V. was energetic and made every one respect order and law, which did not please a certain class.
  35. ↑ Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 142-7, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 172-3, state that the former, a member of the diputacion, was urged in letters from leading men in the south to take the initiative in a revolution to overthrow the tyrant. Vallejo went to Monterey to consult with the other northern vocales, but found them timid about resorting to rebellion. On his way back to S. F. he met V. at Sta Clara, and was offered by him all kinds of official favors if he would abandon the party of Padrés. This was just before the exile of the latter, and V. had received alarming news of growing uneasiness in the south.
  36. ↑ Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 73-5; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 24-34. Pico says that in the middle of Nov. his brother-in-law, José J. Ortega, came down from Monterey with news that V. was preparing to come south, and that he intended to hang Pico and Bandini for their efforts in behalf of the diputacion. He at once sent for J. A. Carrillo — also his brother-in-law — who came to his rancho of Jamul; both came to S. Diego in the night and had an interview with Bandini, and the three resolved on a pronunciamiento as the only means of thwarting V.'s plans. It took about two weeks to perfect their plans and to learn what men could be relied on. During this time Pico and Juan Lopez made visits to Los Angeles to enlist the Angelinos in the cause. They found that Alcalde Sanchez had about 70 (some others say 30 or 40) of the citizens in jail; but Ávila and other leaders disapproved of any rising until V. should have passed Angeles, when they would attack him in the rear, and the Dieguinos in front. Finally they heard from Stearns a confirmation of V.'s schemes as before reported.
  37. ↑ Bandini says there were 14 men in the first revolutionary party. Pico names, besides the 3 signers, Ignacio, Juan, and José Lopez; Abel Stearns; Juan María Marron; Andrés and Antonio Ibarra; Dámaso and Gervasio Alipas; Juan Osuna; Silverio Rios; another citizen, and a cholo to carry ammunition. Pico says he was deputed to arrest Capt. Argüello, whom he found at his house playing tresillo with his wife and Alf. Valle. He begged pardon for the intrusion, presented his pistols, and marched the two officers away to join Capt. Portilla, who had been arrested by Bandini. Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5, like most of the California writers, mentions the arrest of himself and the rest, but gives no particulars.
  38. ↑ E. was a timid man, not inclined to revolutionary acts, and moreover not in good health; therefore his reluctance to assume the responsibility of such a movement; yet I hardly credit the statement of the Vallejos and others that he refused the command until forced by Carrillo's threats to accept it.
  39. ↑ Pronunciamiento de San Diego contra el Gefe Político y Comandante General de California, Don Manuel Victoria, en 29 Noviembre y 1 de Diciembre de 1831, MS. Translation: Mexican citizens residing in the upper territory of the Californias. If the enterprise we undertake were intended to violate the provisions of the laws, if our acts in venturing to oppose the scandalous acts of the actual governor, D. Manuel Victoria, were guided by aims unworthy of patriotic sentiments, then should we not only fear but know the fatal results to which we must be condemned. Such, however, not being the case, we, guided in the path of justice, animated by love of our soil, duly respecting the laws dictated by our supreme legislature, and enthusiastic for their support, find ourselves obliged, on account of the criminal abuse noted in the said chief, to adopt the measures here made known. We know that we proceed, not against the sup. govt or its magistrates, but, as we are deeply convinced, against an individual who violates the fundamental bases of our system, or in truth against a tyrant who has hypocritically deceived the supreme powers so as to reach the rank to which, without deserving it, he has been raised. The supreme being, master of our hearts, knows the pure sentiments with which we set out: love to country, respect for the laws, to obey them and make them obeyed, to banish the abuses which with accelerated steps the actual ruler is committing against the liberal system. Such are the objects which we call pure sentiments and in accordance with public right. We will maintain this before the national sovereignty, and time will bear witness against what the breaker of laws chooses to call sedition. From the sentiments indicated may be clearly deduced the patriotic spirit which directs us to the proceeding this day begun; and at the thought that such sentiments are entertained by the people of Alta California, there is generated within us a complete conviction that our indispensable action will be supported and therefore sustained by all who live in this unfortunate country. As for the military officers in actual service, opposition is naturally to be expected from them to our plan, and we must allow them at first this unfavorable opinion demanded by their profession; but not so later, when they shall have fully learned the wise and beneficent intentions with which we act; for they also, as Mexican citizens, are in duty bound to maintain inviolate the code to which we have all sworn. We believe that your minds are ever decided in favor of the preservation of society, and your arms to be ready in the service of whoever may assure happiness, and in support of the laws which promulgate its representation. You are assured of the contrary spirit shown by the chief authority of this California, and we begin, in manifesting his criminal acts, with the infraction committed against the territorial representation, which has been suppressed on pretexts which confirm his absolutism, though you voted for the members to be the arcas of your confidence; the total suppression of the ayuntamiento of Sta Bárbara; the shooting of several persons by his order at Monterey and S. Francisco, without the necessary precedent formalities prescribed by the laws; the expatriation suffered by the citizens José Antonio Carrillo and Abel Stearns, without notification of the reasons demanding it; the scorn with which he has treated the most just demand which with legal proofs was presented by the very honorable pueblo of Los Angeles, leaving unpunished the public crimes of the present alcalde; and, not to weary you with further reflections of this nature, please consider the attributes which he has assumed in the department of revenues, making himself its chief, with grave injury to the public funds. We trust that after you know our aims you will regard the removal of all these evils as the duty of every citizen. We believe also that the public sentiment of the territory will never attempt to violate our rights, or still less provoke us to make a defence foreign to our views (!). The said ruler has not only shown himself shameless in the violation of law, but has at the same time imperilled our security and interests by reason of his despotism and incapacity: You yourselves are experiencing the misfortunes that hare happened during the short time of his management. For all these reasons, and with all obedience and subjection to the laws, we have proposed: 1st, To suspend the exercise of D. Manuel Victoria in all that relates to the command which he at present holds in this territory as comandante general and gefe político, for infraction and conspiracy against our sacred institutions, as we shall show by legal proofs. 2d, That when at a fitting time the excelentísima diputacion territorial shall have met, the military and political command shall fall to distinct persons as the laws of both jurisdictions provide, until the supreme resolution. These two objects, so just for the reasons given, are those which demand attention from the true patriot. Then let the rights of the citizen be born anew; let liberty spring up from the ashes of oppression, and perish the despotism that has suffocated our security. Yes, citizens; love to country and observance of the laws prescribed and approved by our supreme powers are the fundamental basis on which we travel. Property is respected; likewise the duty of each citizen. Our diputacion territorial will work, and will take all the steps conducive to the good of society; but we beg that body that it make no innovation whatever in the matter of the missions, respecting their communities and property, since our object is confined solely to the two articles as stated. To the sup. govt belongs exclusively the power to dictate what it may deem proper on this subject, and it promises to the padres to observe respect, decorum, and security of the property intrusted to their care. Thus we sign it, and we hope for indulgence in consideration of our rights and justice. Presidio of San Diego, Nov. 29, 1831. Pio Pico, Juan Bandini, José Antonio Carrillo.

    'We, Capt. Pablo de la Portilla, etc. [see names at end], acquainted with the preceding plan signed by [names as before, with titles], according to which the people of this place surprised the small garrison of this plaza on the night of Nov. 29th, consider it founded on our natural right, since it is known to us in all evidence that the gefe político and comandante general of the territory, Don Manuel Victoria, has infringed our federal constitution and laws in that part relating to individual security and popular representation; and we find ourselves not in a position to be heard with the promptness our rights demand by the supreme powers of the nation, which might order the suspension which is effected in the plan if they could see and prove the accusations which give rise to so many complaints. But at the same time, in order to secure in the enterprise the best order, and a path which may not lead us away from the only object proposed, we choose and proclaim lieut-col. of engineers, citizen José María de Echeandía, to re-assume the command, political and military, of the territory, which this very year he gave up to the said Sr Victoria — this until the supreme government may resolve after the proper correspondence, or until, the diputacion being assembled, distinct persons may in legal form take charge of the two commands. And the said chief having appeared at our invitation, and being informed on the subject, he decided to serve in both capacities as stated, protesting, however, that he does it solely in support of public liberty according to the system which he has sworn, coöperation for the best order, and submission to the supreme powers of the nation. Thus, all being said publicly, and the proclamation in favor of Sr Echeandía being general, he began immediately to discharge the duties of the command. And in token thereof we sign together with said chief — both the promoters of the plan who signed it and we who have seconded it — to-day between 11 and 12 o'clock, on Dec. 1, 1831. José María Echeandía, Pio Pico, Juan Bandini, José Antonio Carrillo, Pablo de la Portilla, Santiago Argüello, José María Ramirez, Ignacio del Valle, Juan José Rocha, and as comandante of the artillery detachment, Sergt Andrés Cervantes.'

  40. ↑ David Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., Robinson, Life in Cal., 118-21, and Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 131-4, state that Portilla was the man who warned Victoria, urging him to come south, and promising the support of his company, but treacherously joining the rebels and leading them against the man he had agreed to defend. I think there was some truth in this charge. That is, Portilla was a Mexican officer in command of a Mexican company, and naturally a partisan of Victoria rather than of the Californians. He had a perfect right to warn the comandante, and very likely did so, intending to support him; but it would have required much more strength than he ever possessed to withstand the movement of Nov. 29th; and the indications are that the captain was put in command on the march to Los Angeles mainly that he might be watched. Several Californians state that it was only by the vigilance and threats of José Antonio Carrillo that Portilla was kept from going over to the foe at the last. A contemptible weakness, rather than deliberate treachery, was Portilla's fault; besides, as we shall see, the valiant commander and his men did no fighting when the hour of battle arrived.
  41. ↑ The widow Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS, 29-30, states that provisions were prepared at her house for Victoria's march, and that he left Monterey at dawn with about 15 men. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 29-30, and Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 48-9, speak from memory of Victoria's arrival at Sta Bárbara. The latter says Guerra warned Pacheco to be careful. 'Cuidado! que aquellos son tercos; allí está José Antonio Carrillo.' Spence says Victoria took 10 men from Monterey; Robinson, that he reached Sta Bárbara with 20.
  42. ↑ Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 35-40. Pico's narrative of the whole affair is remarkably accurate in every case where its accuracy can be tested, and is therefore worthy of some credit where no such test is possible.
  43. ↑ Pio Pico, Osio, Mrs Ord, and others state that some sharp words passed between the two officers, Victoria implying that Pacheco was moved by fear, and the latter indignantly repelling the taunt.
  44. ↑ For a biographical sketch of Romualdo Pacheco, see local annals of Sta Bárbara later in this volume.
  45. ↑ José María Ávila vas a native of Sinaloa, who came when a boy with his parents, Cornelio Ávila and Isabel Urquides, to Los Angeles. He was a wild and reckless fellow in his youth, but dashing and popular, noted for his skill in horsemanship. He amassed considerable property, and in 1825 was elected alcalde of Los Angeles, though suspended for a despotic exercise of power. On one occasion a citizen complained to Gov. Argüello that he had been arbitrarily imprisoned by the alcalde, who was called upon to explain, as he did in the following language: 'My motive for putting this person in jail was that I thought proper to do so; and because, besides that motive, I had other grounds, in the stating of which a good deal of time would be consumed; and since the man's complaint is only intended to take up your worship's time and mine, I close by stating that this is all I have to say, repeating myself obedient to your superior orders.' Carrillo (J.), Doc., MS., 17-20. Ávila's late imprisonment by Sanchez at Victoria's order was the cause of his special wrath against the latter. Doña Inocencia Pico de Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS, 28-30, says that José María had a fight vith one Nieto, and was condemned in consequence to a long imprisonment. He came to Monterey, staying at narrator's house, to induce Victoria to change the penalty to a fine; but the gov. refused, and Ávila went back very angry, vowing vengeance. As there is in the archives some reference to the troubles of Ávila and Nieto, this story may be accurate, though it is not clear how the former could have left the jail to visit Monterey on such business.
  46. ↑ It would serve no good purpose to present variations of testimony on each point of this affair, which would be pretty much equivalent to giving seven eighths of the narratives in full; but I append some items from various sources, interesting for one reason or another. The narrative of Juan Ávila, nephew of José María, is worthy of especial notice as the testimony of an eye-witness who is also a well known and respected man. He watched the conflict from a little distance, having been advised by his uncle to take no active part. He, like one or two others, thinks that V. had advance to Cahuenga the night before. He designates the battle-ground as the Lomitas de la Cañada de Breita. His version of the fight agrees in general with that in my text, except that he says nothing of Talamantes, and states that Portilla's men fired first. His details after Pacheco's fail are as follows: Ávila rushed among the soldiers in search of V., whom he gave a lance-thrust in the side, unhorsing him, but when about to repeat the blow was shot in the spine by the Mazateco Leandro Morales, and was himself unhorsed. Pedro Guerrero rushed up to kill him, but A. shot him in the knee with his remaining pistol. V. was so near that A., struggling on the ground, was able to grasp his foot and throw him; but he rose again and killed A. with his sword. Ávila, Notas, MS., 11-15. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 178-89, gives a very full narrative. His presentment of Portilla's grief at seeing the brave Mazatecos drawn up in battle array against each other, of his fear that all V.'s men must inevitably be killed in a bad cause, his orders to fire the first shot in the air, and the interposition of providence in the interest of an economía de sangre, is — though given in sober earnest — amusingly absurd. Osio's account of the fight agrees for the most part with the preceding, but he says that V. got one of his wounds from Talamantes. He also mentions the absurd actions of a drunken man, Francisco Sepúlveda, who came up at the last moment. This writer gives the impression that firing had continued, that the personal conflicts had taken place in a shower of bullets, and that the rebels retreated only after the fall of Ávila. He is very severe in his remarks on their cowardice. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 35-40, states that José Antonio Carrillo warded off Pacheco's sword-thrust with his musket, and mentions Talamantes services. Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 75-6, gives no particulars, but states that V. opened the fire without consenting to give or receive explanations. In a letter written a few days later, Echeandía says: On Dec. 5th the citizens of Los Angeles 'pronounced with their ayuntamiento for the said plan, promising gladly to sacrifice their lives and interests in its support. This promise they kept and are keeping, for that same day Victoria, whom we supposed in Monterey, presented himself in the vicinity of the pueblo, and, without accepting any arrangement or even discussion, opened fire, thinking to subject them; but in vain, because, anxious for their liberty, they gave themselves up to death, and succeeded in putting Victoria on the brink of death, since seriously wounded he retired his force to this mission.' Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 245, xxx. 276. Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5, says it was Guerrero who killed Ávila. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 49-50, says the report brought to Sta Bárbara was that Ávila was wounded by Pacheco, wounded Victoria, and was killed by Isidoro Ibarra. Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 27-8, calls the place of the fight Arroyo Seco. Amador, Mem., MS., 135-6, had heard from Francisco Alviso, an eye-witness, that it was Victoria who shot Ávila. Manuel Castro, Rel., MS., 25-9, tells us that Ávila went out by permission of the rebel leaders to fight single-handed with Pacheco and Victoria! Steven C. Foster, S. José Pioneer, July 28, 1877, states that when the bodies were found, 'Ávila still grasped the lance-staff with a death-grip, while the point had been driven through Pacheco's body,' giving other inaccurate particulars. Many of the Californians in their narratives simply state that there was a battle and Victoria was wounded, and others say there was only a personal combat between Ávila, Pacheco, and Victoria.
  47. ↑ Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 22. She says the most serious wound was in the head, under the eye. Osio says that Charles Anderson was summoned with medicines from S. Pedro. From later letters of V. himself it appears that by the end of Dec. a troublesome discharge of blood from nose and mouth had ceased, and all his wounds had healed except one in the chest, which caused him much trouble even after his arrival in Mexico. He had also many contusions which were painful. Guerra, Doc., MS., iv. 180-3.
  48. ↑ Bandini and Pico say there was a surrender on that day.
  49. ↑ E. from S. Gabriel Dec. 9th to Vallejo, and to the ayunt. of S. José and Monterey, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 245; xxx. 276; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 20-1; St. Pap., Sac., MS., xii. 9. He seems to propose also that the different comandantes should select a comandante general to act temporarily.
  50. ↑ Dec. 21st, Echeandía from Los Angeles announces that V. has already started for S. Diego to embark. Dept. St. Pap., S. José, MS., iv. 94; Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 251.
  51. ↑ I have the original contract approved by E. on Dec. 27th, with the correspondence of E., Bandini, and Stearns on the subject, in Bandini, Doc., MS., 18-24, 27-30. See also Leg. Rec., MS., i. 194, 211, 297-8. The money — reduced to $1,500 by the fact that Pliego paid $100 for his own passage — was borrowed from foreigners and other private individuals, except a small sum obtained from the Los Angeles municipal funds. Stearns acted as agent to obtain the money, and E. and Bandini became responsible for its re-payment. It was paid over to Bradshaw on Jan. 11th. In February the dip. assumed the debt, but asked for time, greatly to Bandini's annoyance. Of the final settlement I know only that in Sept. 1834, Bandini acknowledged the receipt of $300 from the ayunt. of Angeles on this account. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., i. 118.
  52. ↑ Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 925-7.
  53. ↑ 53 References to embarkation of the passengers and sailing of the Pocahontas in Bandini, Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., 18-30; Id., Hist. Cal., MS., 76-7; S. José Arch., MS., v. 40; Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 254; xxx. 286, 290; Guerra, Doc., MS., iv. 180-1; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 21-2. There was a report current in Mexico that V. had been shipped on the schooner Sta Bárbara, in the hope that she would be wrecked. Alaman, Sucesos de Cal, en 1831, MS. For a biographical sketch of Padre Antonio Peyri, see the local annals of S. Luis Rey in a later chapter of this volume. Rodrigo del Pliego came to Cal. in 1825, his commission as alférez bearing date of Dec. 21, 1824. He had previously served in the Tulancingo dragoons, being retired as alférez of urbanos in Dec. 1821. He was attached to the Monterey company from the time of his arrival until August 1827; and then transferred to the Sta Bárbara company. He commanded a squad of the San Blas infantry company in 1826-7; made two minor expeditions against the Indians while at Sta Bárbara in 1828; and commanded 18 men of the S. Diego company in 1830 at the time of the Solis revolt. He returned to Monterey with Victoria in Jan. 1831, or a few months earlier; and served as prosecutor or defender in some of the celebrated cases under V.'s rule. Hoja de servicios, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxi. 19-20. In 1834 he seems to have been promoted in Mexico to the command of the Sta Bárbara company, but never returned to Cal. Id., lxxix. 83. In 1828 he had been declared incompetent and ordered by the min. of war to return to Mex. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 12. Pliego was detested by the Californians, apparently without exception, as a cowardly sycophant. No one credits him with any good quality; the official records throw no light on his personal character; and the only thing to be said in his favor is that the Californians, being bitterly prejudiced against him and his friends, may have exaggerated his faults.
  54. ↑ Alaman, Sucesos, MS.
  55. ↑ Guerra, Doc., MS., iv. 183-4. Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 131-2, tells us that Victoria retired to a cloister. Robinson implies the same. Alex. S. Taylor somewhere says he died in 1868 or 1869.
  56. ↑ The narratives furnished me by Californians, touching more or less fully on V.'s rule, overthrow, and character — most of which I have already cited on special points — are as follows: Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 160-89; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 24-40; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 136-59; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS. ii. 161-83; iii. 7-8, 48-50; iv. 81; Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS. 72-7; Amador, Mem., MS., 122-8, 135-6; Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 28-31; Id., Notas, 11-15; Bee, Recoll., MS., 2-3; Boronda, Notas, MS., 16-17; Castro, Rel., MS., 23-9; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 64-6; Gonzalez, Exper., MS., 29-30; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 16-21; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 11-13; Lugo, Vida, MS., 14-16; Machado, Tiempos, MS., 26-8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-50; Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 22; Pico, Acont., MS., 18-23; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 6-9; Rodriguez, Statement, MS., 7; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 7-8; Torre, Reminis., MS., 22-30; Valdés, Mem., MS., 21; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 109-14; Weeks' Reminis., MS., 73-4.

    General accounts narrating briefly the events of V.'s rule, in Marsh's Letter to Com. Jones, MS., 4-5; Robinson's Life in Cal., 118-21; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 91; Wilkes' Narr., U.S. Explor. Ex., v. 174; Mofras, Exploration, i. 294; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 131-4, and Los Angeles, Hist., 13. Mr Warner in the last work makes the revolution a local event of Los Angeles annals. These different writers speak favorably or unfavorably of V. according to the sources of their information, or to their bias for or against the padres and José de la Guerra on one side and the Bandini-Pico Vallejo faction on the other. Tuthill seems to have taken the versions of Spence and Stearns in about equal parts. Mofras speaks very highly of Victoria, because of his dislike for the Vallejo party. The version of Robinson, a son-in-law of Guerra, has been most widely followed.

  57. ↑ Leg. Rec., MS., i. 348-9; Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 42-3. Vallejo, Sanchez, and Peña signed at S. F.; Leandro Flores for S. José; and Buelna and Castro for the Monterey ayunt. Juan Higuera and Antonio Castro, of the ayunt., declined on Dec. 25th to approve the plan; but Castro changed his mind next day, Higuera still needing more time to think it over. At Sta Bárbara the plan was signed on Jan. 1, 1832, by Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Valencia, and José Maria García; and it was approved by the ayunt. of Los Angeles on Jan. 7th. Id. The pronunciamiento of S. F., Dec. 19th, is given in Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 248. Next day the artillery company recognized Echeandía. Id., i. 250. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 152-3, claims to have started for the south with a small force in response to a letter from J. A. Carrillo, before he heard of Victoria's downfall.
  58. ↑ Certificate dated Dec. 22d, and signed by Zarembo, Khlébnikof, and Shélikof, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 310; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 181, implies that there were others besides Gomez who attempted to escape.
  59. ↑ For the period from 1831-5, see chapters xi.-xiv., this vol.; and for 1836-40, see vol. iv.
  60. ↑ See p. 50, this vol., for his election.
  61. ↑ Carrillo, Cartas del Diputado de la Alta California, 1831-2, MS. There are 14 letters in this interesting collection, besides several of other years, all to his brother-in-law, Guerra.
  62. ↑ Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 169.
  63. ↑ Carrilo, Exposicion dirigida á la Cámara de Diputados del Congreso de la Union por El Sr D. Cárlos Antonio Carrillo, Diputado por la Alta California. Sobre Arreglo y Administacion del Fondo Piadoso. Mexico, 1831. 8vo. 16 p. Dated Sept. 13, 1831. This copy of a very rare pamphlet, the only copy I have ever seen, was presented to me in 1878 by Doña Dolores Dominguez, widow of José Carrillo, a son of the author. It has some slight corrections in ink, probably by the author or by Guerra.
  64. ↑ Mexico. Nem. Relaciones, 1832, p. 25, and annex. i. p. 11; Id., Hacienda 1832, annex. M.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_California_(Bancroft)/Volume_3/Chapter_7&oldid=13058537"