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

CHAPTER III.
ECHEANDÍA AND HERRERA — FINANCE — THE SOLIS REVOLT. 1826-1830.
{{hi|HARD-TIMES ITEMS — AID FROM MEXICO — THE REVENUES — COMISARIO AND HABILITADOS — SECRET INVESTIGATION — SUSPENSION AND RESIGNATION — ESTRADA, VALLEJO, AND JIMENO CASARIN AS ADMINISTRATORS — REVOLT OF 1828 — REVOLT OF 1829 — CAUSES — MONTEREY TAKEN — JOAQUIN SOLIS — PLAN OF NOVEMBER 15TH — ARGÜELLO DECLINES the COMMAND — SOLIS MARCHES SOUTH — ECHEANDIA'S PREPARATIONS — REVOLT AT SANTA BARBARA — BLOODLESS BATTLES OF Dos PUEBLOS AND CIENEGUITA — RETREAT OF SOLIS — RETAKING OF THE CAPITAL — ÁVILA CAPTURES SOLIS — TRIAL — THE SPANISH FLAG — BANISHMENT OF HERRERA AND TWENTY CONSPIRATORS — FINANCIAL AFFAIRS IN 1829-30.
IT is not my purpose to present financial statistics in this chapter. Only fragments survive to be presented anywhere, and these will receive such slight attention as they require, in connection with local presidio annals, commercial topics, and general remarks on the subject of ways and means for the whole decade. Here I have to speak of the management, or mismanagement, of the territorial revenues, of the insufficiency of those revenues, as administered, to pay the soldiers or other employees of the government, and of the resulting destitution, discontent, and finally revolt.
There is little or nothing that is new to the reader to be said of the prevalent destitution in these years, a destitution which oppressed only the troops. The ​rancheros and pobladores were at least as well off as in earlier Spanish times, the improved market for their produce afforded by the trading fleet counterbalancing the heavy duties that were now exacted. Few if any of these classes seem to have made an effort to do more than support themselves and families; and this, save to the incorrigibly lazy, was an easy task. The lands produced food both for the owners and for the Indian laborers who did most of the work; while the natural increase of their herds furnished hides and tallow more than enough to be bartered with the agents of Hartnell or Gale for groceries, implements, and clothing. So far as the records show, they did not even deem it worth their while to complain of excessive duties and consequent high prices.
For the support of the military establishment and to defray other expenses, the only resources were the duties collected on imports and exports — or the taxes on production, which practically took the place of the latter — the chief source of revenue, but one liable to considerable variation; contributions exacted from the missions as gifts, loans, sales on credit, or special taxes, given by the padres more and more grudgingly as the years passed by; and finally the supplies furnished ​directly or indirectly by Mexico — that is, the $22,000 sent in 1825, possibly one or two small amounts sent later, and a few drafts on the national treasury which in one way or another foreign or resident traders were induced to accept as security for loans or in payment for goods supplied. Theoretically, the national treasury should have paid the territorial expenses and received the net product of the territorial revenue; but practically, the territory was left to pay its own expenses, nominally about $130,000 a year, always excepting the small amounts furnished as before specified, and a considerable supply of very bad tobacco. To estimate the actual revenue with any approach to accuracy would probably have been wellnigh impossible at the time, and is entirely so now. Fully collected and honestly administered, the total revenue could hardly have amounted to one half the nominal expenditure; and indications are not wanting that a considerable portion was lost to the troops through smuggling operations and the rascality of officials. Moreover, there were charges of partiality and injustice in the final distribution of the net product, ​certain presidios, and certain classes of troops, being favored or slighted.
During the Spanish rule, and the interregnum that followed, the provincial finances had been managed — for the most part honestly, if not always with great skill, so far as accounts were concerned — by the habilitados of the respective companies, one of whom in the later days had been named administrator, with very little authority over the others. On the establishment of the republic, Herrera had been sent, as we have seen, in 1825, as comisario to take charge of the territorial finances as a subordinate of the comisario general of the western states Sonora and Sinaloa. The instructions to Herrera are not extant; but it is evident from subsequent communications of himself and his superiors that he had exclusive control of the treasury department, and was independent of the gefe político, except that like any other citizen he was within the civil and criminal jurisdiction of that officer. The habilitados, the only persons in the territory qualified for the task, served as Herrera's subordinates for the collection of revenue at the presidios, so that locally there was no change. Whether the comisario appointed them voluntarily or in obedience to his instructions does not appear; but their duty was simply to collect the revenues and pay them over to Herrera, their duty as company paymasters in disbursing funds subsequently re-obtained from the comisaría being a distinct matter.
Naturally the habilitados were jealous from the first of the authority exercised by their new master, and were displeased at every innovation on the old method under Estrada's administration. Moreover, Herrera was a stranger, and worse yet a Mexican, being therefore liable to distrust as not properly appreciative of Californian ways. He was also a friend and relative of Captain Gonzalez, and involved to some extent in the quarrel between that officer and Estrada, which circumstance contributed not a ​little to his unpopularity. A quarrel resulted, the details of which it is neither desirable nor possible to follow closely. What were the relations between Herrera and Echeandía before they left Mexico, I do not know; but after their arrival in California there could hardly fail to be jealousy, especially on Echeandía's part; and at any rate, the latter soon became leader in the opposition to the comisario. I append some items from the correspondence of the times.
Herrera was an intelligent and able man; his acts were approved by his superior officer; and I find in contemporary documents no proof of irregularities or unfaithfulness in his official conduct; though it would perhaps be presumptuous to found on the imperfect record an opinion that he acted wisely or ​honestly throughout the quarrel, especially in opposition to the statements of several Californians who remember the controversy. It is my opinion, however, that the class of Californians represented by Alvarado, Osio, and Vallejo look at Herrera's acts through the colored glasses of political prejudice; and that among other classes the comisario was by no means unpopular.
In April 1827 Echeandía ordered a secret investigation of Herrera's administration, to be conducted by Zamorano. The proceedings were begun at San Diego the 30th of April, and afterwards continued at Monterey and Los Angeles in May and June. The main charge was that the comisario had, on his way to California, invested a portion of the $22,000 of territorial funds intrusted to his care in effects to be sold for his own account and profit, though it was not claimed apparently that there was any deficit in his accounts, or that the money thus improperly used had not been refunded. Zamorano as fiscal reported the ​charge well founded; and it must be admitted that the testimony against the comisario, though for the most part weak, furnished some grounds for suspicion — and nothing stronger under the circumstances — that certain packages of goods had been purchased with public money. When we consider that these proceedings were conducted in secret, mainly by Herrera's enemies, that they were never carried further in public, that Herrera was never called upon for a defence upon any criminal charge, and that Echeandía was smarting under the rebukes of the comisario general, it seems wisest at the least to attach little importance to the accusations.
The matter was discussed by the diputacion in the sessions of July, Bandini and the president making all the speeches. Bandini's deferred revelations proved to be the reading of a treasury report on the sums of ​money intrusted to Herrera, and his own statement that he was positive of Herrera's misuse of the funds. The record of the previous secret investigations seems also to have been read. Ternas, or trios, of candidates for contador and treasurer were proposed in due form. Bandini then advocated the suspension of Herrera; but Echeandía opposed so radical a measure, arguing that the comisario would be so closely watched by the new officials that he could do no harm, and meanwhile the charges against him could be investigated by the supreme government. It is not easy to determine whether the governor's opposition was a mere pretence, or whether, while wishing to humble his rival, he doubted the expediency of suspending him on so slight evidence. On the first vote, four members were for suspension, one against it, and one besides the president did not vote. Subsequently another member was called in, the arguments were repeated, and Bandini obtained a secret vote in favor of suspension. It is not unlikely that this result had been prearranged, and that the arguments of Bandini and Echeandía were made merely for effect.
Herrera was not suspended, because the candidates for treasurer declined to serve, and no suitable person for the place could be found; but Pablo Gonzalez was installed as contador from July 23d, and matters went on much as before, save that Herrera, offended at the charges of interfering with other officials, now declined to perform some duties thought to belong to him. He neglected certain details of gathering ​supplies and serving out rations to prisoners, was summoned before the diputacion on September 19th, denied the right of that body to question him, but indulged in a wordy warfare with Echeandía in the legislative hall. Next day the governor evolved from his inner consciousness, and caused to be approved by the diputacion, the theory that the duty of a comisario subprincipal de hacienda was confined to 'systematizing the financial administration,' by reporting on needed reforms, and keeping accounts of net products of revenue. Accordingly he notified Herrera of the result of his legal studies prompted by the comisario's misdeeds, and ordered him to restore to the habilitados all their former powers, and to confine his own authority to the narrow limits indicated above. Herrera thereupon, in obedience as he said to previous instructions from his superior, resigned his position, leaving the financial administration wholly in the hands of the gefe político, and asking for a passport to go to Mazatlan, which Echeandía refused. Thus the matter stood during the rest of 1827.
​Nor did 1828 bring any notable change in the situation. The habilitados attended to the revenues as of old, Estrada and afterward Vallejo of Monterey exercising a kind of supervision, until in November Manuel Jimeno Casarin, a young man brought to California by his brothers, the friars Jimeno, was appointed by Echeandía as acting comisario, or administrator of the revenues, his position being similar to that held by Estrada before the coming of Herrera; and Juan Bandini was appointed at about the same time as subordinate comisario at San Diego. Meanwhile Herrera continued his protests against being kept in California; could obtain neither a trial nor a passport; but made some efforts to obtain material for a later prosecution of his adversary. Echeandía was greatly blamed by both the comisario general and the minister of the treasury for his course towards his foe; but he defended himself as well as he could in writing, and insisted on keeping Herrera in the territory and holding him responsible for all financial ills, present and prospective.
​A kind of revolt occurred in the north in October 1828, with which Herrera's name is connected as instigator by Alvarado, Osio, and Vallejo, without the slightest foundation so far as can be known. There is indeed very little information extant respecting the movement, although I have the statements of several old Californians on the subject, including two of the leaders, José de Jesus Pico and Pablo Véjar. It appears that on the 8th of October, a large part of the cavalry soldiers at Monterey, joined by those of the escoltas who left their missions, refused to serve longer unless they were paid, thereupon marching out of the presidio with their weapons. Touching subsequent events, there is no agreement among the narrators, beyond the fact that Lieutenant Romualdo Pacheco persuaded the rebels to return to their duties, several of the number being put in prison to await the decision of the supreme government on their fate. All agree that want of clothing and food was ​the cause of the rising; and there is no reason to suppose that it had any politically personal significance. There is also a vague allusion to insubordination at San Francisco about the same time, but we have no particulars.
In 1829 there was a practical cessation of the financial controversy in its old phases, the situation remaining unchanged, save that Antonio María Osio acted as comisario during part of the year in the place of Jimeno, and an opportunity was afforded Echeandía to rid himself of Herrera by sending him away as a prisoner for trial, on charges somewhat less unfounded than that of mismanaging the revenues. Discontent among the soldiers continued, resulting in a revolt more extensive and complicated than that of 1828, though not much more serious in its results. Destitution, resulting from non-receipt of pay and rations, and attributed naturally by the troops to some fault of the governor, was the leading motive of the soldiers; the participants in the last revolt, yet under ​arrest, were rendered reckless by current rumors that they were to be shot; Herrera and some of the friars, from motives of personal hostility, were willing to encourage any movement directed against Echeandía; and finally the records, without clearly implicating any prominent individual, leave room for a suspicion that most of the officers at Monterey and San Francisco were at the least not very earnest in their opposition to the rebels, though lacking confidence in their success and courage to take risks.
In June two soldiers revealed to Alférez José Fernandez del Campo a plot of the troops to rise against the governor and all those de la otra banda, with a view to put all the offices in the hands of Californians. The outbreak at Monterey was to take place June 22d, but the plan was revealed on the 18th. The leader was Joaquin Solis, a convict ranchero, living not far from the presidio. Solis was a companion of Vicente Gomez, El Capador. Like him, he had rendered service in the war of independence, and like him, had been sentenced to California for brutal crimes, which, but for his past services, would have been more severely punished. This revelation strangely seems to have caused no special sensation. There was a formal examination of several witnesses, with some official correspondence. Difficulty was experienced in inducing any officer to act as fiscal, or prosecutor, and finally the matter was dropped for reasons not apparent. Stranger still, this affair was ignored in all the proceedings arising from later troubles.
​The rebels thus secured Monterey without opposition, and similar easy success at all other points was anticipated. There was the usual indulgence in prospective death or liberty as a figure of speech, but clearly none of the conspirators expected serious obstacles. A leader was needed, none of the conspirators ranking higher than corporal, or feeling competent to take the command. Raimundo de la Torre was accordingly despatched with a summons to Joaquin Solis, who came in from his rancho on the 14th and assumed the position of comandante general of the Californian troops. I suppose that all this had been pre-arranged, although Solis and the rest insisted on their trial, that the convict general now heard of the rising for the first time, and he even had the assurance to claim that he accepted the command to prevent the disorders that would naturally arise from leaving the rabble uncontrolled!
Now that there was a general, a plan or pronunciamiento was an absolute necessity. Solis applied for such a plan — or, as he afterward tried to make it appear, for a petition or 'representation' to Echeandía on existing evils — to José María Herrera. The ​ex-comisario was in sympathy with any movement against the governor. We are told by Osio, Vallejo, Alvarado, and others that he was the prime mover in the revolt, Solis being merely a tool in his hands. I think this view of the case an exaggeration, and that Herrera, like several others perhaps who were never directly implicated, was willing to wait, and even aid so far as he could in safety. However this may have been, the troops counted on him to a certain extent, and he at the least dictated the plan, which was written at his house by Petronilo Rios, and completed in the evening of November 15th. It was read aloud to a group of foreigners, including Hartnell, Spence, Cooper, Stearns, Anderson, McCulloch, and others who happened to be present, and who more or less approved the document, 'from motives of courtesy;' as David Spence afterward testified. It was read to the soldiers and approved by them the same night. Many claimed later not to have been pleased with the paper, since it was a plan of revolution, and not a petition for redress of grievances; but this was an afterthought in most cases.
The plan was made to embody the grievances of Herrera, as well as of the troops, and was directed against Echeandía as the author of all territorial evils. The avowed object was to put the territory ​in the hands of a temporary governor appointed by the diputacion. There was no need of a such a revolution, or at least no reason to expect relief from such measures; the charges against Echeandía were grossly exaggerated, since he was merely a weak man placed in circumstances where a strong man could have done but little; but the prevalent destitution among the troops was real, and was perhaps a sufficient motive ​for mutiny. It was natural enough that all existing evils should be popularly attributed to the ruler, and could the soldiers have induced some popular and intelligent officer to take the command, the movement would have been successful so far as the overthrow of Echeandía was concerned.
Soon after his arrival at Monterey, Solis transferred the imprisoned officers from the calabozo to the warehouse. Meanwhile Raimundo de la Torre was sent to San Juan, where he lay in wait for and captured Fernandez del Campo, an officer who at the time of the revolt was absent on an Indian expedition. His men joined the rebels, and the leader was brought to the presidio under arrest. Whether he also was locked up with the rest does not appear; but in a few weeks all the prisoners were released at the intercession of foreigners, and on the advice of Herrera, much against the wishes of some of the soldiers. Vallejo and Rocha were however sent south in the Brookline. Stephen Anderson carried copies of the plan to Santa Bárbara by water, and Meliton Soto, a citizen, was sent south with letters calculated to advance the rebel cause, while Raimundo de la Torre read the plan to the soldiers of every escolta from Soledad to San Luis Obispo. The ayuntamiento of Monterey, headed by Tiburcio Castro, the alcalde, accepted the plan, proclaimed it to the assembled citizens, and urged its acceptance by other towns. Castro turned over the municipal funds, and replenished the rebel treasury by imposing a tax or loan of a few thousand dollars on the traders, chiefly foreigners. In accordance with the plan, an administrator of revenues was chosen, the position being given to Antonio María Osio, who accepted it. When all had been arranged at the capital, General ​Solis turned his attention to the north, leaving Francisco Pacheco in command at Monterey.
Of the march northward and return we have few details; but there had been a previous understanding with the garrison, and neither at San Francisco nor at any point on the way did Solis encounter opposition. The northern tour consumed about a month, to December 20th. The ayuntamiento of San José accepted the plan as the best means of securing peace and order; or at least so I interpret a letter of Alcalde Archuleta, which that dignitary perhaps intended to be vague and unintelligible. At San Juan and Santa Clara Solis received supplies and money to the amount of a few hundred dollars; but Padre Duran at Mission San José, not in the comandante's route, declined to contribute, on the ground that he had no official ​knowledge of any change in the government. He was perhaps the only man in the north who ventured to question the authority of Solis. At San Francisco Solis and his army were received with an artillery salute; the whole garrison promptly joined the rebel cause; José Sanchez was made comandante instead of Martinez; and that is practically all that is known on the subject.
At San Francisco Solis tried to induce Luis Argüello to take the chief command of the rebel forces. There is no documentary evidence of this fact, but it is stated by many of the Californians. The effort was natural; and José Fernandez says that the offer was made in his presence, Solis urging Argüello's acceptance, and promising to retire himself, so that Don Luis might not have to associate with a convict. But ​Argüello, while admitting that he would rejoice at the overthrow of Echeandía, had no disposition to head a revolution, and persisted in his refusal. A part of the San Francisco garrison was incorporated in the army of Solis, but most of the men deserted at San José on the march to Monterey.
On his return Solis received despatches warning him to make haste or Santa Bárbara would be lost to the cause. Accordingly after a short stay at the capital, he began his march southward with over one hundred men, Gabriel de la Torre commanding the cavalry and Lázaro Piña the artillery. Beyond the facts that the army was at San Miguel December 28th, got plenty of supplies at each mission, and was in such good spirits at Santa Inés that the men refused to accept the governor's indulto which met them at that point, we have practically no details respecting the march. Thus far all went well; but the leader had no ability, nor control over his men; the army had no elements of coherence, and would fall apart of its own weight at the slightest obstacle; yet if success should take the form of a hole, the fragments might fall into it.
Let us now turn to the south. Echeandía heard of the Solis revolt November 25th, or a day or two earlier. On that date he revealed it to the officers and people in a circular, stating that he had convoked a council of seven officers, who were asked for a frank opinion whether his rule was satisfactory, and what changes if any could be advantageously made in the administration. The response was unanimous that he was a good governor, though Juan Malarin was named as the best man for the revenue department. ​Consequently he declares that the adherents of Solis, if they do not lay down their arms and leave the authorities free, shall be deemed traitors and accomplices of the Spanish invaders at Vera Cruz. Two days later Echeandía reported the matter to the minister of war, announcing that he would start north in a few days to retake the capital. He declared his belief that Herrera was at the bottom of the revolt, hoping to gratify personal hatred, to avoid the rendering of accounts and exposure of his frauds, and either to escape by some vessel, or more likely to declare for Spain or North American adventurers. Echeandía does not fail to make the affair a text for discourse on the difficulties of his position, and the urgent need of aid from Mexico. He left San Diego on December 1st and reached Santa Bárbara the 15th, after having made arrangements on the way for reënforcements to come from Los Angeles, and for a meeting of the diputacion, as elsewhere related.
At San Diego the rebellion obtained no foothold; but at Santa Bárbara in the early days of December, before Echeandía's arrival, the garrison rose much as at Monterey, and held the presidio for nearly two days. The outbreak seems to have taken place just after the arrival of Meliton Soto with despatches from the north on the 2d. The coming of such a messenger had been expected, and a rising had been planned since the beginning of November. It was now settled ​that the discharge of a musket at midnight of the 3d, eve of Santa Bárbara, should be the signal; but an accidental discharge brought on the outbreak prematurely at 11 A. M. Romualdo Pacheco, acting comandante, and Rodrigo del Pliego were seized and placed under arrest in Pacheco's house, guarded by a corporal and eight soldiers. Sergeant Dámaso Rodriguez was perhaps the leader of the rebels, or perhaps, as he afterward claimed, only pretended to be so to preserve order. No violence was done to persons or property. A distribution of warehouse effects was proposed, but was postponed until the soldiers of the mission guards should come to claim their share. The quelling of this revolt was a simple matter. The officers were released by Rodriguez and a few others, on the 4th, against the wishes of many. Pacheco easily won over a few soldiers, marched to the barracks next day, and advised the troops to return to their allegiance and duty. They were given until 9 P. M. to think of the matter, and they deemed it best to surrender, after six of the number, presumably the leaders, whom only Pacheco had threatened with arrest, had been given time to run away with Meliton Soto for the north.
Echeandía put Santa Bárbara in the best possible state for defence. He obtained reënforcements of men, ​animals, and supplies from the pueblo and missions, stationed Pacheco with about ninety soldiers at Cieneguita, two or three miles from the mission, and awaited the approach of the rebel forces. The 7th of January, 1830, he issued a proclamation, in which he called upon the Monterey insurgents to surrender on condition of full pardon and liberty, except to the leaders, who would be simply imprisoned until their pardon could be obtained from Mexico. He believed the revolt to be due to the selfish aims and the crimes of Herrera, who had deceived the troops; and he warned them that in opposing him they were really in rebellion against the republic, a state of things that could lead only to blood and ruin. Next day he received a communication from Solis, dated at Santa Inés or El Refugio the 7th, in which he was called upon to give up the command in accordance with the plan. He answered it the same clay with a refusal. He ordered the rebels to present themselves unarmed for surrender, and renewed the argument against Herrera, claiming that the troops had received two thirds of their pay, and that there had been no complaint to him.
None of the Solis men accepted the first offer of pardon received at or near Santa Inés. No obstacles had yet been encountered, and this revolt was so planned as to overcome everything else. It was yet hoped that the Santa Bárbara garrison might join the movement, and the rebel army marched bravely on to Dos Pueblos, even coming in sight of the foe on the 13th. Pacheco and his men immediately executed a ​change of base to prevent being cut off — that is, they retreated from Cieneguita as fast as their legs would carry them, and took refuge in the presidio. Solis seems to have come somewhat nearer Santa Bárbara, but we know little in detail respecting what occurred for three days. Echeandía wrote to the minister of war: "On the 13th the rebels came in sight of the divisioncita of government troops, and from that time by their movements and frivolous correspondence endeavored to gain a victory; but knowing the uselessness of their resources and the danger of being cut off on their retreat, they fled precipitately at dusk on the 15th in different directions, spiking their cannon, and losing twenty-six men who have accepted the indulto." The last act of Solis before running away was to announce that his men were ready for a fight, and would never surrender until they got their pay. The rebel chieftain described the events at Santa Bárbara thus: "Having taken a position between the presidio and mission, I found it impossible to enter either one or the other, the first because it was fortified, the second because of the walls pierced with loop-holes for musket-fire, and of all the people within, so that I knew we were going to lose, and this was the motive for not exposing the troops by entering. —— wrote me that the general had ordered Portilla to march with 150 men to surprise us, and seeing myself without means of defence for want of munitions, I determined to spike the cannon, and retire with my army to fortify myself in Monterey — lo que verifiqué al ​momento." Dr Anderson wrote to Captain Cooper: "You would have laughed had you been here when the gentlemen from your quarter made their appearance. All the people moved into the presidio, except thirty women, who went bag and baggage on board the Funchal. The two parties were in sight of each other for nearly two days, and exchanged shots, but at such a distance that there was no chance of my assistance being needed. About thirty have passed over to this side. The general appears to be perplexed what to do with them. He seems as much frightened as ever." All my original witnesses state that cannon were fired, but give no particulars save the important one that nobody was hurt. Several represent the army of Solis to have fled at the first discharge of Pacheco's guns. At any rate, the rebel force fled, pursued at not very close quarters, scattering as they advanced northward, and wholly disbanded before they reached the capital, where singly and in groups they soon took advantage of the renewed offers of pardon. The campaign of the south, and the battles of Santa Bárbara, Cieneguita, and Dos Pueblos — the first in which Californians were pitted against Californians — were over.
On the 18th Echeandía summoned the soldiers of the north, that is, those who had surrendered, before himself, Carrillo, and Zamorano. Each one was interrogated about the charges made in the plan. Each declared that there were no grounds whatever for ​complaint; whereupon the governor showed documents to prove that in 1829, one month with another, the soldiers had received two thirds of their full pay. On the 24th the Brookline arrived at San Diego with Vallejo and Rocha, the Monterey prisoners, and the same day or the next there came the news that the capital had been retaken. Pacheco was already on his way north to assume the command at Monterey. On the 26th, Echeandía reported all he had done to the supreme government, and did not fail to utilize the occasion by expatiating on California's great dangers and needs.
The recapture of Monterey was effected January 20th, largely by the aid of the foreign residents. It was feared that Solis and his men, defeated at Santa Bárbara, would devote their efforts to plunder, and it was deemed prudent to act before their return. There was no more difficulty in bringing about this movement in favor of Echeandía than in effecting the original revolt against him; yet David Spence indulged in a little Mexicanism when he wrote of the affair that "with the firm resolution of death or victory, like bold British tars, we stood it out for twelve days and nights." Malarin, Munrás, Alvarado, and José de Jesus Vallejo were most prominent among those who aided the foreigners; and the citizens of San José seem to have sent a party to assist in the reëstablishment of the regular government. ​Francisco Pacheco was apparently still left in command, and Solis' men as they came straggling in were pardoned and incorporated in the garrison. Eight or ten of the ringleaders failed to present themselves, and patrol parties were sent out to find them. Solis himself, concealed near his rancho, was taken by a company of thirty men under Antonio Ávila. This man was a convict companion of Solis and Gomez, and he undertook the capture on a promise from Spence and Malarin to obtain from him a passport for Mexico. Neither Echeandía nor his successors could grant the pass, and Ávila had to stay in California. Just after the capture of Solis, early in February, Romualdo Pacheco arrived with a force
​from the south, and took the command. Herrera was now put under arrest in his own house.
Now followed the formal investigation and trial of the imprisoned leaders. It was carried on at Monterey and Santa Bárbara, by Zamorano, Pacheco, Lobato, and Pliego, under instructions from Echeandía, and extended from January to June. The testimony I have utilized in the preceding narrative, and it requires no further notice except in a single point. The evidence respecting the revolt was clear enough; but nearly all the troops were implicated; few men of any class had shown real opposition to the movement in the north; a rising of soldiers with the object of getting their pay was not a very serious offence from a military point of view; and pretty nearly everybody had been included in the various indultos offered. In fact, the criminal case was hardly strong enough to suit Echeandía's purposes respecting Herrera, the only one of the accused for whose fate he cared particularly. A more serious charge was needed, and grounds for it were easily found. After their defeat at Santa Bárbara, Solis and one or two of his men, wishing to gain the support of the padres, like drowning men clutching at straws, talked about raising the Spanish flag. It was easy to prove these ravings of the soldiers, and the foolish remarks of Padre Luis Martinez at San Luis Obispo. Particular attention was given to this phase of the matter in the investigation. A revolt in favor of Spain would sound very differently in Mexico from a rising of hungry soldiers against ​their local chief, and Echeandía hoped he might now safely send Herrera out of the territory. Respecting the banishment of Padre Martinez, I shall speak in the following chapter.
On May 9, 1830, the American bark Volunteer, John Coffin Jones, Jr., master, sailed from Monterey with fifteen prisoners on board to be delivered at San Blas. Herrera was confined to a room constructed for the purpose on deck; Solis and the rest were in irons. We have no particulars about the reception of the prisoners by the Mexican authorities, but it is certain that they were discharged from custody without punishment. Three at least of the soldiers, Torre, Véjar, and one of the Altamiranos, found their way back to California in later years; while Herrera, in spite of all Echeandía's accusations and precautions, was soon sent back, as we shall see, to take his old position as comisario de hacienda. California's first revolution was over, and little harm had been done.
​Respecting the management of the revenues in 1829-30 there is little or nothing to be said beyond noting the fact that Osio, Jimeno, and Bandini are mentioned as comisarios during 1830, without much regard to chronology. It would seem that after the revolt Jimeno was restored to his old position, and that Bandini was appointed before the end of the year, though there is inextricable confusion, not only in dates, but in the offices of comisario, administrador, and contador.
* ↑ Complaints are not very numerous in the archives, since the uselessness of writing on the subject had been learned by long experience. The following minor items on this topic are perhaps worth preservation: 1826, Echeandía's complaints about the suspension of officers' pay. Only those officers who came with him to Cal. are paid, and there is much discontent among the others. St. Pap., Sac., MS., xix. 32-4. Complaints heard by Beechey of non-payment of dues, and of excessive duties which greatly increased prices. Beechey's Voy., ii. 10. March 30, 1826, petition of soldiers, alleging that they were getting la racion, nada mas, as in years past, notwithstanding the promises of the govt. Repeated June 7th. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 13. April 30th, no funds to furnish $400 for the celebration of a great national event. Id., lvii. 14. Hartnell lent the comisaría 264 cattle, which in 1839 had not been repaid. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iv. 59. 1827, Feb. 1st, comisario has no funds to supply blankets; great want of money and food; impossible to get a loan. Id., i. 79. Feb. 5th, gov. lends $600 in view of the urgent needs of the soldiers. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 21. July 5th, complaint that S. Blas company do not get their share of supplies. Id., v. 58. Nov. 21st, decree of national govt on a loan, part of which is to go to the relief of California. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xx. 8. 1828, March 3d, troops naked and in great want. Could get no part of their dues. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxvi. 68. Same date, gov. tells com. gen. that no supplies have been sent from Mexico for a considerable time! Dept. Rec., vi. 7. March 10th, eight soldiers at Monterey granted leave of absence to go and earn their living for 3 months, for want of funds at Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxvi. 24-5.
* ↑ On the $22,000, see chap. i., this vol. At the same time $12,000 was ordered paid in favor of California through the comisario general at Arizpe; but I find no evidence that any part of the sum was ever paid. July 1826, record that $3,000 was sent to Cal. by the Sirena from the sup. govt. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iii. 6. In Jan. 1829, Enrique Virmond seems to have accepted drafts from the presidial comandantes to the amount of about $5,000 for goods supplied from the María Ester; and again in Dec. he supplied the same amount in goods and silver coin. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 1, 153, 168, 176. Virmond had exceptional facilities for getting his claims allowed by Mexican officials, and he probably lost nothing. Nov. 11, 1828, M. G. Vallejo authorized to borrow $500 payable on sight, or 15 days after sight of draft! Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 160. According to Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1830, annex. 33, the govt of Cal. had borrowed $7,262, of which sum $1,564 had been repaid down to June 29th. Hartnell also lent the govt $7,100 in 1827; the draft signed by Herrera was not accepted in Mexico, on account of some alleged irregularity; and on Nov. 20, 1830, Hartnell petitions the gov. on the subject. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxx. 154.
* ↑ Feb. 19, 1830, gov. informs the comisario general that commerce, carried on by a peculiar system, 'authorized by force of circumstances' in Cal., yielded barely two fifths of the expenses; while mission contributions, by dint of constant requisitions and annoyances, yielded not more than one fifth of the deficit. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 72. The revenue obtained from vessels is insufficient for garrison expenses; therefore, the missions advance grain and cattle, and the nation assumes the debt. Bandini's letter of 1828 in Bandini, Doc., MS., 8.
* ↑ March 3, 1826, com. gen. to Herrera. Reproves him for not sending accounts so that the great necessity of the troops might be known and relieved. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 22. March 25th, Id. to Id., announces that all claims of Cal. may be presented at the comisaría. Id., ii. 17. April 7th, H. to Echeandía. Charges that Lieut. Estudillo for a just reprimand becomes abusive. Id., i. 41-2. May 11th, E. orders that all amounts due the treasury be paid at the comisario's office. Dept. Rec., MS., iv. 37. June 27th, H. to E. Wishes to know why he is not recognized as gefe de hacienda; measures have been ordered without his consent or knowledge. He wishes E. to define his own position, so that he, H., may be freed from his burdens and report to the supreme government. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 136. July 11th, H. to E. Defence of the practice of allowing vessels to touch at way points. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., i. 42-7. Sept. 11th, com. gen. to E. Asks him to order habilitados to send in their accounts to Herrera in two months, or he will appeal to Mexico. Reprimands him for exceeding his powers, using funds without Herrera's permission, treating H. as a subordinate and not as the gefe of all treasury branches, and not obeying the laws. Threatens to withdraw the comisario altogether if E. does not mend his ways. Accuses him of preventing the execution of Herrera's decree on the payment of duties, without authority to do so. H. was under no obligation to submit his orders or those of his superior to the gefe político. 'Watch also over those friars with their Spanish ideas.' The comisario must be supported, not opposed. In the appointment of a sub-comisario at Loreto, E. had also usurped authority. 'I can not permit you thus to interfere. The power of appointment rests exclusively with H. as my subordinate.' H. was not to be blamed for reporting these things, since he had positive orders to do so. Id., i. 23-34. Oct. 16th, H. to E. on the details of business, explaining his efforts to get along with an insufficient revenue. Complains of habilitados for not rendering accounts, and for drawing drafts on him when they knew he had no money. Protests against paying one company more than another; and claims that in case of urgent need the soldiers should be preferred to officials. Id., i. 56-60. Dec. 1st, H. complains that his orders are disregarded, and that Estrada refuses to render accounts. Repeats the complaint a little later, with threats to report to Mexico. Dec. 27th, 30th, orders from Mexico requiring half the revenues to be remitted to the national treasury! and that regular accounts be sent for publication in the Gazeta of Guadalajara. Id., i. 72-3, 89-91, 14.
* ↑ No one has anything to say in Herrera's favor. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 111-17, 132-46, is especially bitter in his criticism, charging H. with dishonesty, embezzlement, conspiracy, usurpation, insolence, and pretty much everything that was bad. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 122-3, is hardly less severe. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 62-3, tells us that H. 'did nothing but conspire and make trouble.' J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 91-2, represents H. as intriguing with the support of the padres to unseat Echeandía and put himself in power. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 282-6, describes the quarrel without attaching much blame to Herrera; and it is to be noted that Mrs. Ord, one of the clearest-headed Californian writers, personally friendly to Echeandía, expresses no opinion on the merits of the parties to this quarrel. Ocurrencias, MS., 20-1.
* ↑ Herrera, Causa contra el Comisario Sub-Principal de Californias, José Maria Herrera, 1827, MS.; also an abridged record in the archives. Capt. Guerra testified that of the $22,000 the Sta B. Co. had got only $3,600; knew not what had become of the rest; had heard that the money was landed at S. Blas, and only a part reshipped with goods supposed to have been purchased with that money. Maitorena had heard of the investment of public funds, and had seen in the possession of Luis Bringas certain bales of goods, which he judged to be the ones bought by H. In a letter of later date, Maitorena attempts to show some irregularities in the collection of duties from the Nile, in 1825. Juan Bandini reserved his formal testimony until the matter should come before the diputacion; but declared it to be a matter of public notoriety that H. had misapplied the public funds. Alf. Romualdo Pacheco noticed at S. Blas that only $6,500 of the $22,000 was reshipped, and was told by J. M. Padrés that H. had invested the balance in goods, having admitted as much to him, Padrés. It was a notorious fact that Bringas had sold the goods at the presidios, towns, and missions of Cal. Alf. Juan José Rocha confirmed the statement as to what was seen in S. Blas. Lieut. Estrada testified that the Morelos brought some 20 packages, including cigars and brandy, more than were on the manifest; and these goods were opened at Herrera's house, where and elsewhere they were sold by Bringas. Deponent believed the goods belonged to H. Luis Mariano Bringas, after much difficulty, was found and induced to testify at Angeles before the alcalde and Capt. Portilla. His testimony was clear enough, and to the effect that of the $4,500 in goods which he had brought to California and sold, $3,000 belonged to his friend Tejada, a trader of Saltillo, and $1,500 had been committed to him by H. as belonging to his (H.'s) cousin. Full particulars were given of his dealings. But by the testimony of Ignacio M. Alvarado it was shown that Bringas, while refusing to testify on various pretences, had sent a messenger post-haste to Monterey and had received a message from H. Capt. Portilla's opinion was, therefore, that Bringas had testified falsely under instructions from H., whose accomplice he was. One of the documents exhibited by Bringas, in support of his testimony, was a draft bearing the name of Wm. A. Gale, written Galle, and pronounced a forgery by Gale himself, who denied that he had ever had any transaction with Bringas. Moreover, Rodrigo del Pliego testified that H. had openly boasted of furnishing Bringas with papers that would serve his purpose, implying that the signatures were forged by him. Zamorano's final opinion, rendered to Echeandía at the end of July, was that H. had invested a part of the public funds for his own account at Tepic, since of the $22,000 only about $3,500 in coin could be proved to have arrived in Cal.; and it was very likely that the bales of goods referred to represented the balance; though it was hard to prove, because H. had had plenty of time to replace the deficit in coin. June 16th, Echeandía in a circular orders the apprehension of Bringas, who is to be compelled to testify. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 53. April 26th, E. to com. gen., says that H. has not acted properly, and that proceedings have been instituted to prove his misbehavior. Id., v. 136. July 10th, H. to gov., with renewed complaints on the disregard of his orders by Martinez, Estrada, and Argüello. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 76-9.
* ↑ Leg. Rec., MS., i. 91-101. For contador the terna was, 1. Pablo Gonzalez, 2. Joaquin Estudillo, 3. Manuel Dominguez. For treasurer, 1. José Antonio Carrillo, 2. José Antonio Estudillo, 3. Antonio María Osio. In the first vote Ortega, Bandini, Carrillo, and Buelna voted for suspension; Estrada against, and Tapia reserved his vote. Romualdo Pacheco was the suplente called in, but the final vote was secret, no names being given.
* ↑ Appointment of Gonzalez, who spoke English, as contador, July 23d. Leg. Rec., MS., i. 64, 91; Dept. Rec., MS., v. 71. Aug. 7th, Echeandía to com. gen. Says he has forwarded to the secretary of the treasury the secret investigations against H., whom the diputacion does not suspend for want of a suitable man to take his place. Id., v. 138. Sept. 19th. H. to com. gen. complaining that the ministro de hacienda fails to answer his important questions. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS, i. 91.
* ↑ Leg. Rec., MS., i. 86-90, 101-4. Sessions of Sept. 19th-20th. Echeandía supported his new theory with an elaborate argument. A new terna for treasurer was proposed, consisting of Santiago Argüello, Maitorena, and Ignacio Martinez; but military duties prevented their acceptance.
* ↑ Sept. 23, 1827, gov. to H. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 91-2, repeated Sept. 27th. Sept. 20th, H. to Estrada, announcing his resignation. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 110. Sept. 26th, gov. to Estrada, announcing and explaining the change. The complaint was in the matter of furnishing supplies and rations, and the theory was that Gov. Argüello had given up to H. at first powers to which he was not entitled. Id., i. 109. Same date, Echeandía notifies Prefect Sarría of the change. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 38-9. Echeandía's argument quoted in Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 172-4. E. says in 1829 that H. 'se suspendió y tenazmento se negó en el ejercicio de todas sus funciones desde el dia 26 de Septiembre de 1827, dejandolas al cargo de este gobierno.' Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxx. 19. Sept. 29th, E. to H. Chides him for his refusal to perform duties belonging to his office, and refuses a passport. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 93. October, E. asks minister of the treasury that the trial or investigation of himself and H. may take place in Cal. Id., v. 130-1. Oct. 1st, E. to comandantes and prefect on his orders to H. Id., v. 93-4; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 41. Oct. 3d, E. to H. Never told him not to manage the funds entering his office; and if he persists in resigning the place, the treasury will be injured even more than it was by his assumption of the habilitados' duties and rights. Dept. Rec., v. 95. Oct. 11th, H. to E., protesting against the orders which detain him in Cal. If the treasury interests were injured, it was because he was not allowed to go to report to his superior in order that the latter might put another man in his place; and the governor, to whom he was in no way responsible, was the only one to blame. If charged with criminal acts, he was ready for trial; if not, there was no right to detain him. He wished to enjoy the wise laws of his country where they were respected and obeyed, and not remain where they were shamefully transgressed, as he was ready to prove. He also claimed his arrears of salary, he having received only $126 in a year, and having to sell his furniture to keep alive. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 51. Oct. 16th, E. to comandantes, alcaldes, etc., announcing his action towards H., urging habilitados to attend carefully to their duties, and explaining why H. was not allowed to depart — that is because at a distance it would be hard to prove H.'s frauds or justify his own action or that of the diputacion. Dept. Rec., MS., 101, 103; Dept. St. Pap., S. José, MS., iv. 49-50; Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., xi. 1. Oct. 28th, E. to com. gen. Thinks the administration of the revenue by the habilitados is injurious. With an administrator, vista, and guard at each port, the revenue might amount to $30,000 or $40,000 annually. Dept. Rec., MS., v. 139. Nov. 27th, E. tells the comandante that the company officers had never been free from responsibility in the matter of finances. Id., v. 105.
* ↑ Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 13, 133; Leg. Rec., MS., i. 286. Oct. 6th, P. Antonio Jimeno writes to P. Peyri about getting for his brother the position of collector of customs. Peyri replies that he should obtain a certificate of fitness, and security for $4,000. Perhaps Jimeno did not take possession until Jan. 1, 1829. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxx. 308.
* ↑ Jan. 11, 1828, gov. to min. of war. Defends himself against charges of usurpation by the min. of the treasury. Some of the charges had apparently been printed, for which satisfaction is demanded. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 18-19. Feb. 22d, H. asks for a passport to go and render his accounts at Mazatlan. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 101. March 1st and April 26th, com. gen. to E., blaming him and the diputacion for exceeding their powers, even on the supposition that H. was guilty as charged, in which case a report should have been sent to his superior officer. H. is also reprimanded on the same date for failing to report properly on E.'s misdeeds and other matters. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 96-103. June 13th, H. to E. Protests against what is virtually his arrest, since he is not allowed to leave Monterey for Sta Bárbara and S. Diego to attend to business. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 58. July 1st, H. required by the pres. of Mexico to form a regular accusation against E.; nothing to be kept hack. Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., i. 92-33. Aug. 7th, E. says he did not intend to prevent H. from travelling by land within the territory: Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 79. Sept. 15th, E. to com. gen. Says H.'s charge that he and the diputacion deprived him of his office is false. Id., vi. 12-13. Nov. 7th, E. orders that H.'s salary be paid punctually. Id., vi. 131. Same date, will not allow him to leave the territory till ordered to do so by the sup. govt. Id., vi. 129. Dec. 4th, 9th, 17th, further correspondence, showing that H. went to S. Diego, apparently to make secret investigations against his foe, which caused additional complications not very clearly recorded. Id., vi. 148, 150, 154-6, 158.
* ↑ Oct. 1828, escoltas from S. Luis Obispo to S. Juan Bautista have abandoned their posts. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., i. 6, 8-9. Oct. 18th, Echcandía orders comandante of Monterey to bring the rebels to trial by court-martial; but if he cannot master them, to offer a pardon. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 113. Oct. 20th, E. to min. of war. Says the escoltas left their posts, and with the other troops came with arms in their hands to demand their pay. Hopes by the aid of the artillery lately arrived to prevent such disorder; but needs officers. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 36-8. Oct. 31st, Id. to Id. Mentions the revolt, and asks that the guilty ones be pardoned. Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 36. Nov. 7th, comandante of Monterey has made known to the troops the governor's pleasure at their loyalty in rejecting the proposals by some degenerate militares. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 159. Jan. 1829, fiscal's opinion in case of Francisco Soto for the revolt of Oct. 8th, and other insubordination, then in prison. Thinks the death penalty should not be inflicted. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxix. 24. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 123-5, says 40 soldiers, not including the older sergeants and corporals, marched 12 leagues to Codornices Mt, and were induced to come back by Pacheco and the padres, the former offering to intercede for their pardon. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., ii. 83-3, tells us the cavalry company went to Sauzal, could not agree among themselves, and when Pacheco put himself at their head, they instinctively obeyed his order to march back to their quarters, where they were under arrest for many months. Pico, Acontecimientos, MS., 10, says that 80 men wandered about for a month, when half went back and were pardoned. The rest, the leaders being Felipe Arceo, Raimundo and Gabriel de la Torre, Pablo Véjar, José de Jesus Pico, and Francisco Soto, remained away longer, but at last returned at the request of their friends and families, and were put in prison. Véjar, Recuerdos, MS., 8-9, says he and another man were sent to Estrada to say that they would serve no longer without pay; and that before they returned to duty Estrada promised pardon and some relief. Torre, Reminiscencias, MS., 8-9, says that Arces was leader, and that the rebels went as far as Sta Cruz, S. Juan, and S. José. Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 25-7, saw the rebels form in line near her husband's house to return with Pacheco. She says Véjar was the leader, and that while in prison all were terrified at threats of being put to death. Amador, Memorias, MS., 86, tells us it was a long time before all returned to duty. He and José de Jesus Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 15-16, represent the soldiers as having been in a pitiable state of destitution when they were driven to insubordination. Mention of the affair in Lugo, Vida, MS., 13; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 24.
* ↑ Oct. 20th, gov. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 38-9.
* ↑ June 9, 1829, order from Mexico that the soldiers under arrest for mutiny be set at liberty, after admonishment as to their duties. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., v. 12. It does not appear that this order reached Monterey before the rising. The fact that the prisoners began the movement is stated by Pico, Acont., MS., 10-13; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 8-10; Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 25-8.
* ↑ June 23, 1929, com. of Monterey to Echeandía. Says a conspiracy of the Californians against the Mexicans had been detected, and his men had been under arms for 3 days, though the conspirators had not dared to break out. Dept. Rec., MS, vi. 16. June 25th, Alf. Fernandez reported to the com. the revelatious of Mariano Peguero, corporal of artillery, and of private Pedro Guerrero. Gabriel Espinosa and Raimundo de la Torre were named as concerned in the plot. The cavalryman, Juan Elizalde, confirmed the statements of Peguero and Guerrero. Follows a record of preliminary legal proceedings, leading to no intelligible result. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxix. 15-19. July 1st, gov. to com. of Monterey. Orders arrest of Solis, Espinosa, and Torre, and examination of Elizalde, Guerrero, and Fernando Curiel. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 96-7; Dept. Rec., MS., vi. 187. July 8th, gov. orders artillery comandante to redouble his efforts to prevent the threatened revolt. Id., vii. 193. Sept. 22d, José T. Castro, alcalde, assures Echeandía of the fealty of S. José. St. Pap., Miss. and Colon., MS., ii. 7. Sept. 28th, Fernandez del Campo to alcalde. Must watch that no one carries forbidden arms. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxix. 419.
* ↑ The details of the arrests are given at considerable length in testimony to be referred to later. R. Torre, Véjar, Leon, Dolores García, Espinosa, and a few artillerymen composed the party that took Vallejo. He was called on pretext of an important message just arrived, but suspecting something, would not come out; therefore the door was kicked in after consultation. Peguero, Véjar, and Espinosa arrested Jimeno. Several witnesses testified that Alvarado and Castro were imprisoned. Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 25-8, was told by Véjar at the time that the object was to make the officers eat morizqueta and learn how the soldiers had to live. Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., 3-7, says Solis took the officers of the presidio by stratagem. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 148-59, says he and Castro were sleeping in the same room with Vallejo, when 10 soldiers came and marched all three to jail, where they spent the night on the bare ground, half-dressed. Vallejo got a chance to make a speech, but to no avail. The prisoners feared at first serious results from the reckless character of the conspirators. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 86-96, 110-11; iii. 245, gives a similar narrative to that of Alvarado. Says it was 2 A. M. when the soldiers came on pretence of giving him the mail-bag. They were shut up with the lowest criminals, who were however soon released. He was much relieved to hear from Jimeno, the last prisoner brought to jail, that the plot was to overthrow Echeandía, and not, as he had feared, to plunder the town and flee on one of the vessels in port. Torre, Reminis., MS., 10-21, says his brothers Raimundo and Gabriel were in command of the escoltas of S. Miguel and S. Luis respectively, and came with their men and those of S. Antonio and Soledad, arriving on the night of the revolt. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 125-51, tells us that Rocha, Vallejo, and Fernandez del Campo had repeatedly warned Echcandia of the danger, without his having paid the slightest heed. Véjar, Recuerdos, MS., 9-35, says Echeandía would certainly have been shot had he been in Monterey at the time, as the soldiers considered him responsible for all their troubles.
* ↑ Nov. 13, 1829, summons to Solis to take the command, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 45, signed by Peguero, Leon, Gabriel de la Torre, and Petronilo Rios. See also Id., p. 40, 43, 53, 55.
* ↑ There are several vague allusions in the testimony to two brazos fuertes, on whom dependence was placed. One was supposed to be Herrera, and the other perhaps Capt. Gonzalez, or Lieut. Lobato, or Francisco Pacheco. Solis claimed to have acted in many things on H.'s advice after he had taken the command. H. in his testimony said he first knew of the trouble when in the night of the 12th he heard a noise in Jimeno's room next to his own, and rushed out sword in hand to defend him. Next day he was offered the comisaría, but declined, and advised the rebels to await the arrival of Osio, who already had the appointment from Echeandía. He again declined the office when offered by Solis. He was asked for advice, and gave it in the interest of good order. He subsequently agreed to dictate the plan on condition that the officers should be set at liberty, and with a view to secure respect for the authorities, to prevent outrages on persons and property; in fact, to control for the good of the territory so far as possible a revolution which he was powerless to prevent. Dept. St. Pap., MS., lxxii. 71-4. It is fair to state that this defence was at least plausible, and that there is really no evidence of any weight against its accuracy, except the statements of persons liable to be influenced by prejudice.
* ↑ Solis, Manifiesto al Público, ó sea Plan de Revolucion, 1829, MS. It was signed by Solis, Peguero, Leon, Rios, and Gabriel de la Torre. In substance, the document was as follows: The sup. govt, which is ever anxious for our good, and to which we are ever obedient, sent a governor who has failed to comply with his instructions; has scandalously abused his authority; has devoted himself to his own interests and comforts and those of a few men about him; and has paid no attention to the complaints of hungry and naked soldiers. The laws call for a diputacion chosen by the people; but the gefe fails to either convoke that body or to explain his reasons for not doing so, and consequently agriculture, commerce, education, and other vital interests are grossly neglected. Two years ago the gov. suspended the comisario of the revenues for reasons not known, which has resulted in the most scandalous mismanagement of the public funds. The administration of justice and military discipline are in a state of detestable abandonment; immorality and crime are rampant; and all results directly from the ruler's neglect and lack of energy. Therefore, having endured all of misery and neglect that is humanly possible, having resorted in vain to every other expedient, the troops have resolved to use force, and to support the following plan: 1. The diputacion shall meet in due form with all its members. 2. When it has assembled Echeandía shall resign all his powers to the dip., which shall appoint a person worthy of confidence to serve until the arrival of a new gefe sent by the sup. govt, who will be immediately recognized. 3. Both this ayuntamiento (of Monterey) and those of other places will name proper persons to manage the revenues provisionally in accordance with the laws. 4. The troops will remain under their old officers, if the latter agree to this plan; otherwise they will choose a sergeant or corporal as comandante, who shall acknowledge the authority of the gefe appointed by the diputacion. 5. Commandants of troops will apply for pay and supplies to the respective administrators of revenue appointed as above, and never to missions or private persons. 6. Only alcaldes may apply to missions for supplies, giving proper receipts, and delivering the product to the administrators. 7. In very urgent cases the ayuntamiento and administrator may require a moderate loan from private persons, the amount being proportioned to their means. 8. Persons and property to be fully protected, especially in the case of foreigners belonging to a friendly nation. (Herrera added to this article a note in his own handwriting which extended the assurance of protection to the Spaniards already living in the territory — that is, leaving all further action against them for the sup, govt and the new governor to dispose of.) 9. An eloquent peroration, in which the pronunciados declare that they will never lay down their arms until their object is accomplished; that no violence will be used beyond what is necessary in defence of their rights; that there will be no persecution of opponents; that anxiety may be banished from the minds of all, citizens or foreigners; that the object was to reëstablish and not to overthrow the government; that 'the military apparatus which has caused alarm is only the effort of free men against tyranny, and the use of this last resource made everywhere to overthrow tyranny by soldiers overwhelmed by misery, weakened by hunger, and fully awakened by the painful spectacle daily presented to their eyes of a dear wife and tender children, naked, and on the point of becoming victims to indigence.'
* ↑ Nov. 16, 1829, Alcalde Castro to Solis, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 359-60.
* ↑ Nov. 16th, Tiburcio Castro's statement. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 358. In his Historia de California, MS., 145, Don Antonio María naturally calls attention to the fact that he had been previously appointed by Echeandía.
* ↑ Nov. 21st, Pacheco to Solis. Says he is not capable of undertaking the command, having neither talent nor disposition for it; but he was willing to serve his country in any possible way. The following items are from the various statements made from memory: Pablo Véjar, Recuerdos, MS., 9-17, says he had for a week the key of the comisaría, where there was a large box of silver coin, which fact he did not reveal, fearing the men would seize the money and give color to a charge that they had rebelled for plunder. He claims to have been a leader with Torre at first. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 143-6, tells us that Castro was forced to lend $1,000 of the municipal funds, and that he, Osio, distributed over $3,000 in effects to the troops. He arrived the same day as Solis, and helped to secure the release of the prisoners. Estévan de la Torre, Reminis., MS., 12-14, gives some details of the capture by his brother of Fernandez del Campo at S. Juan. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 86-90, attributes his release to the efforts of the foreigners headed by David Spence. He says Sergt Cervantes was also sent south in the Brookline. José de Jesus Pico, Acont., MS., 10-13, says he was sent to intercept the mail at Soledad and to bring away the guard, succeeding in both undertakings. Gonzalez, Revoluciones, MS., 1-3, gives a brief account of the whole affair. Robinson, Life in Cal., 69-70, says that Solis seized about $3,000 in the comisaría, and levied a contribution on the inhabitants, James O. Pattie's version the Solis revolt is perhaps worth presenting apart. That part relating to this first phase of the affair at Monterey is as follows: In January 1830 (the date is wrong) my acquaintances informed me on landing 'that there was a revolution in the country, a part of the inhabitants having revolted against the constituted authorities. The revolted party seemed at present likely to gain the ascendency. They had promised the English and Americans the same privileges and liberty in regard to trade on the coast that belonged to the native citizens, upon the condition that these people aided them in their attempt to gain their freedom by imparting advice and funds. I readily appropriated a part of my little store to their use, and I would fain have accompanied them in hopes to have one shot at the general with my rifle. But my countrymen said it was enough to give counsel and funds at first, and it would be best to see how they managed their own affairs before we committed ourselves by taking an active part in them.' Pattie's Nar., 222.
* ↑ Nov. 22d, Solis announces that he is near S. Juan, and his men need clothing. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 369. Nov. 25th, Alcalde Archuleta seems to accept the plan. Id., v. 357-3. Amounts of money obtained, $140 at S. Juan; $100 at Sta Clara; and $200 at S. José. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 46. Nov. 26th, Solis, at Sta Clara, to ayunt. of S. José. Must have $100 from municipal fund or nearest mission in order to resume his march. S. José, Arch., MS., vi. 14. Nov. 30th, Id. to Id. from S. F., again demands money to supply the troops. Id., vi. 15. Dec. 1st, P. Duran declines to give $200 for a comandante general interino of whose authority he knows nothing. Id., vi. 17. Dec. 4th, 6th, Solis, at S. Francisco, to the ayunt., arguing the case as against P. Duran. The beauties of the plan and the duties of all, including friars, under it are earnestly set forth. Id., vi. 12, 14. Dec. 6th, Solis, back at Sta Clara, gives receipt for $100 of the tithes of S. José, and $200 of Sta Clara. Id., ii. 49. Dec. 11th, Solis, at La Laguna, with complaint against the alcalde of S. José for nothing in particular. Id., i. 35.
* ↑ Feb. 19, 1830, Martinez writes to Echeandía, that on Nov. 15, 1829, Solis was about to attack S. Francisco and he prepared to resist him, but found the troops so demoralized and so disposed to join Solis that he was obliged, not to accept the plan, but to remain neutral and await results. Nov. 30th, he was ordered to deliver the military command to José Sanchez and the habilitacion to Francisco Sanchez, and also to remain in his house as a prisoner. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 129. It would seem that on the final approach of Solis, Martinez had some idea of resistance, for Nov. 19th he wrote to S. José, asking for a reënforcement of 10 vecinos. S. José, Arch., MS., i. 33. In Feb. and March 1830 Corporal Joaquin Piña, who had been in command of the artillery in the past Nov., was accused of insolence to Martinez on Nov. 28th, when he came by order of Solis, then at the mission, to demand ammunition for a salute. Piña denied the insolence, but in turn accused Martinez of having approved the plan when it was first read, Nov. 21st or 22d, and of having sent to Solis a written surrender of the presidio, much to the disgust of Piña, but with the approval of Francisco de Haro. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxi. 21-8. All of the Californian writers mention the expedition to S. Francisco, but none give details. Osio, however, says that Solis met with no opposition from Martinez.
* ↑ The march south, organization of the army, trifling details. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 41, 45-6, 76-7, and scattering. Jan. 15, 1830, Alcalde Soberanes writes from Monterey that he has notice of Solis passing Purísima on Jan. 10th, and that Pacheco is awaiting him at La Cieneguita with 200 men. S. José, Arch., MS., i. 37. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 147, mentions that at Monterey Solis showed an inclination to give up the command; that his old companion Antonio Ávila threatened to oppose him if he continued to be the tool of Herrera; and that a sergeant of artillery went south in his army with the express purpose of betraying him (Lázaro Piña?), as he did.
* ↑ Nov. 25, 1820, Echeandía's circular. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 257.
* ↑ Nov. 27, 1929, E. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x 53-5. He is hard pressed by numerous duties, the difficulty of maintaining harmony with disaffected Spanish friars, the fear of a neophyte uprising, the total want of funds, the difficulties of communication, etc. He wants officers, troops, priests, money, and above all, just now 50 men from Sonora to establish communication by land.
* ↑ Nov. 26, 1829, Echeandía orders the comandante to summon the militia in case of need to serve against Solis. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 258. Dec. 30th, Argüello assures E. that all at San Diego are opposed to the plan and determined to support the govt. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 92. Sergt José María Medrano was accusced by P. Menendez of saying that he had expected the outbreak since July, and that had he been at Monterey he would have favored the plan; but after investigation the padre's testimony was doubted, and Medrano acquitted as a faithful soldier.
* ↑ The best account is given in the testimony of the artilleryman Máximo Guerra. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 65-7. He names as implicated in the revolt and in the previous plans: Dámaso Rodriguez, Antonio Guevara, Vicente Rico, Joaquin Cota, Martinez, and himself, who were the 6 who ran away; also José María Perez, Luciano Félix, and Ex-alcalde Fernando Ticó, who spoke of Anastasio Carrillo as the prospective comandante. Soto in his testimony, Id., 62-3, claimed to have had nothing further to do with the plot than, having business in the south, to carry letters for Solis, receiving $50 for the service. He was back at Monterey before Solis started for Sta Bárbara. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS. , 26-9, who was alcalde of Sta Bárbara at the time, gives a version agreeing with that of Guerra, so far as it goes. Dec. 8th, Echeandía at S. Gabriel wrote about the revolt, stating that Rodriguez was said to have only pretended to accept the command, that Pacheco had regained control by the aid of citizens, and that he was in pursuit of wounded (?) mutineers. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 259. Slight mention in St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 56. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 28-32, tells us that all the artillery revolted except Corporal Basualdo, who took refuge in the comandante's house.
* ↑ Thirty-one citizens went from Angeles. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxiii. 60-1. Dec. 20th, Echeandía directs padres of Sta Inés and Purísima to send to Sta Bárbara all people capable of bearing arms; also all spare animals and supplies to keep them from the hands of the rebels. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 266. Jan. 5, 1830, E. orders alcalde of Angeles to send armed and mounted citizens. Id., viii. 2. Pacheco's advance guard consisted of 30 of the Mazatlan company, 8 artillerymen, 30 of the regular presidial company under Alf. Pliego, 20 of the S. Diego company under Alf. Ramirez, and about 100 neophytes with bows and arrows. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 56.
* ↑ Jan. 7, 1830, proclamation. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 4.
* ↑ Id., viii. 4-7.
* ↑ The retreat is definitely stated only by Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 29-39; Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 27-9; and Pico, Acont., MS., 10-13; but all are good authorities.
* ↑ Jan. 26, 1830, Echeandía to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 58. He says the pursuit of the fugitives had to be suspended temporarily at Purísima. A list of 28 soldiers, who at this time surrendered themselves, is given in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxvi. 23. Jan. 16th, E. announces the surrender of the 26th and his hopes of final success. Some additional correspondence of minor importance, from Jan. 8th to 18th. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 10. Jan. 13th, Pacheco tells E. that he has gained an advantage over the foe. Id., viii. 85
* ↑ Jan. 15th, Solis from 'Campo Nacional' to E. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 4. He was willing, however, to have a conference.
* ↑ Jan. 20th, Solis, at S. Miguel, to José Sanchez. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 118. Solis at this time claimed to have over 100 men left, and to be confident of success. He had only 40 men when he reached Soledad. Id., Ben. Mil., lxxii. 46. Jan. 15th, 16th, 18th, 28th, E. to Pacheco. Instructions about the pursuit of the rebels, and the retaking of Monterey. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 85-90.
* ↑ Jan. 24th, Dr Anderson to Cooper. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxx. 7. The affair as reported at Monterey and reported by Pattie, Narr., 225, was as follows: 'A continual firing had been kept up on both sides during the three days, at the expiration of which Gen. Solis, having expended his ammunition and consumed his provisions, was compelled to withdraw, having sustained no loss, except that of one horse, from a sustained action of three days! The cannon-balls discharged from the fort upon the enemy had so little force that persons arrested them in their course without injury.'
* ↑ Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 120-1.
* ↑ Arrival of Vallejo and Rocha. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., iii. 58. It is erroneously stated by some that these prisoners first carried the news of the revolt to the south. Jan. 26th, Echeandía to Francisco Pacheco, in reply to the latter's announcement that order has been restored at Monterey. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 12.
* ↑ Jan. 26th, E. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 56-8.
* ↑ Feb. 4, 1830, Spence to Hartnell. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxx. 19.
* ↑ Meliton Soto in his testimony stated that Cooper's house was the headquarters, whence he went with Alvarado, Santiago Moreno, Alcalde Soberanes, and several citizens and foreigners to take possession of the artillery barracks at 7 or 8 P. M. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 64. Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 8-13, tells us that the alcalde of S. José sent 45 men, who arrived at midnight and surprised the garrison. Pattie's account of events at Monterey, from the time that Solis marched for the south — absurdly inaccurate in many respects — is as follows in substance: Solis marched on March 28th with 200 men. Echeandía had no knowledge of the revolt. The insurgents were so elated at their victory at S. F. that they were sure of success, and decided to expel all Americans and Englishmen. Capt. Cooper's father-in-law, Ignacio Vallejo, reported this to the foreigners, and at a consultation it was decided to send to Echeandía notice of the impending attack on him at Sta Bárbara, which was done successfully by means of a letter forwarded by a trusty runner. April 12th news came of the battle and retreat. 'The name and fame of Gen. Solis was exalted to the skies.' 'The climax of his excellence was his having retreated without the loss of a man.' Capt. Cooper rolled out a barrel of rum, and when the admirers of Solis were sufficiently drunk, they were locked up, 50 in number, and the rest of the inhabitants took sides against Solis. 'Huzza for Gen. Echedio and the Americans! was the prevailing cry.' There were 39 foreigners who signed the rolls, and Capt. Cooper was chosen commander. They spiked the cannon of the castle, except 4 which they carried to the presidio; broke open the magazine for powder and ball; and stationed sentinels for miles along the road. The Spanish people were all locked up at night to prevent possible communication with the approaching general. In a few days Solis drew near; the Americans waited at their guns with lighted matches until the army was at the very gates, and then ordered a surrender. The soldiers obeyed, but Solis with 6 officers fled. Six Americans, of whom Pattie was orderly sergeant and commander, armed with rifles, were at once sent in pursuit to bring back the fugitives dead or alive. Minute details are given. Several shots were exchanged; one American was wounded, and a Mexican killed, with 4 bullets through his body; but the rest surrendered and were brought back to Monterey, where the American flag floated until Echeandía arrived! Pattie's Narr., 225-9.
* ↑ Spence, Osio, Vallejo (M. G. and J. J.), Alvarado, and others mention the promise to Ávila; but most of them state that the promise was kept, Echeandía granting the pass and $500 in money. Fernandez even speaks of Ávila as subsequently becoming a brigadier in Mexico. I have before me Ávila's petition to Gov. Figueroa in 1833, narrating the Solis capture. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxv. 13. Botello, Anales, MS., 53, mentions Ávila as being at S. Buenaventura in 1838. For some reason unknown to me, the Californians are disposed to regard Ávila very favorably, representing him as sent to Cal. for political offences merely; but in the records he stands as 'a vicious man of very bad conduct, who took part in various murders and assaults on travellers.' He was sentenced on Aug. 24, 1824, and came on the Morelos in July 1825. Prov. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., li. 2; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 3.
* ↑ Solis, Proceso instruido contra Joaquin Solis y otros Revolucionarios de 1829, MS. These documents do not contain the final sentence under which the prisoners were sent away.
* ↑ Pp. 78-105 of the Proceso noticed in the last note are entitled 'Autos que aclaran que el objeto de la faccion de Solis era de pronunciarse en favor del Gobierno Español.' Meliton Soto, Raimundo de la Torre, and Máximo Guerra were said to have spoken in favor of a grito for Spain; and a letter of Solis, dated Jan. 17th, to P. Arroyo de la Cuesta, was produced, in which he announced his purpose to raise the Spanish flag, asked for a neophyte force to aid him, and said that the southern padres had agreed to the plan. p. 88.
* ↑ Feb. 23d, Echeandía reported to min. of war the pacification of the territory, begged most earnestly for aid, and announced the fact that the revolution had really been in the interests of Spain. St. Pap., Sac. , MS. , x. 61-3. April 7th, order from Mexico that Solis and his seven companions be tried for treason. Also thanks to E. for having suffocated the revolt. Sup. Gort St. Pap., MS., vi. 8. Miscellaneous communications respecting the trial in addition to those contained in the Proceso, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 127-130; Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 13, 22, 32, 36, 78.
* ↑ May 7, 1830, receipt of Jones for the 15 prisoners, as follows: José María Herrera, Joaquin Solis, Meliton Soto, Serapio Escamilla, Raimundo de la Torre, Pablo Véjar, Victoriano Altamirano, Gonzalo Altamirano, Leonardo Arceo, Mariano Peguero, Andrés Leon, Máximo Guerra, Antonio Guevara, Gracia Larios, Inés Polanco. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxii. 17-18. Sailing of the Volunteer on May 9th. Id., lxii. 28. Pattie, Narr., 238-9, also sailed on the Volunteer, and names Capt. Wm. H. Hinckley as having been on board and leaving the vessel at S. Blas. The prisoners reached Tepic May 22d. Guerra, Doc., MS., vi. 129. Those belonging to the Monterey cavalry company were dropped from the company rolls in 1836. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxxii. 65. Six other men had been sent away from Sta Bárbara in February in the Emily Marsham, 3 of them, Joaquin García, José M. Arenas, and Antonio Peña, for complicity in the Solis affair. Dept. Rec., MS., viii. 74.
* ↑ Torre, Reminis., MS., 19-21, says that his brother Raimundo was tried by court-martial and acquitted; whereupon the rest were discharged without trial.
* ↑ The Solis revolt is described more or less fully in the following narratives, in addition to such as have been cited in the preceding pages: Ávila, Cosas, MS., 25-8; Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 71-2; Amador, Mem., MS., 86-90; Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 59-64; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 20; Castro, Rel., MS., 19-23; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 2; Valdés, Mem., MS., 18-20. It is mentioned in print by Mofras, Explor., i. 293-4; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 90-1; Lafond, Voy., 209; Pickett, in Shuck's Rep. Men, 227; Wilkes, Narr., v. 173-4; Capron, Hist. Cal., 37-8; Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 130-1; Robinson, Life in Cal., 69-70; and Flint, Pattie's Narr., 222-30.
* ↑ See Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 155-6; iii. 209-10; Id., Ben. Mil., lxii. 22; lxxiii. 53; lxxiv. 6; Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 246-8; Leg. Rec., MS., i. 269, 281-90. Apr. 25, 1830, the Californian diputado in congress urged the uselessness of sending special officers to manage the revenues. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 898. Jimeno was appointed contador on Sept. 30, 1829, by the min. de hacienda, but declined the place in Nov. 1830. Oct. 21, 1830, Echeandía, Bandini, and Jimeno met at Monterey, and decided on the following custom-house organization at Monterey: administrador, with duties of comisario, at $1,000 per year; contador, with duties of vista, at $800; commandant of the guard, with duties of alcalde, at $800; guarda and clerk at $400; servant at $144; patron and two sailors at $144 and $96. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 155-6.