Chapter VII
of this book.
[191] Inventario, op. cit.
[192] Ibid.
[193] Recopilación, 2-1-14; see also 9-27-35, 37, 2-2-39, also 9-27-3, 5, 13, 28, 29, 40, 47. These laws forbid the entrance of foreign ships and individuals to the ports of the Indies.
[194] Real Acuerdo de 17 de Julio, 1656, A. I., 67-6-22. (The final
## action of the Council is indicated without date on the margin of the
auto of the Audiencia.)
[195] Recopilación, 9-46-28; 9-45-13.
[196] Ibid., 2-15-111.
[197] Ibid., 71.
[198] Foreman, Philippine Islands, 241. The laws regulating the trial of cases on appeal may be noted in Recopilación, 5-9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
[199] The following figures have been taken from various reports of the audiencia to the Council of the Indies, and they show the number of criminal cases tried in the tribunal in the years designated:
1710--51 cases ... report dated December 11, 1711; A. I., 105-2-9. 1774--34 cases ... report dated December 25, 1776; ibid. 1776--48 cases ... report dated March, 1778; ibid. 1779--53 cases ... report dated July 30, 1780; ibid. 1786--99 cases ... report dated May 1, 1778; A. I., 105-2-10. 1789--51 cases ... report dated June 4, 1790; A. I., 105-2-10. 1795--38 cases ... report dated April 4, 1798; A. I., 105-2-10. 1822--641 cases ... report dated July 3, 1823; A. I., 106-4-21.
According to Desdevises du Dezert ("Vice-rois et capitaines généraux des Indes espagnoles," in Revue historique CXXVI, 59, 60) the Audiencia of Lima decided 89 civil cases on appeal from February 11, 1788, to January 5, 1789. At the end of this period there were 122 cases waiting on the docket. In the chamber of first instance of the same audiencia 72 cases were tried and 124 remained to be tried at the end of approximately the same period. In the criminal sala during the year 1788, there were 7 death sentences rendered, 16 sentences for robbery, 14 cases tried involving personal injury, 15 for carrying arms in face of the prohibition of the law, and 6 cases of adultery. The magistrates excused themselves for this rather contemptible showing by alleging that the membership of the tribunal had not been complete, to which the king made answer that there would have been sufficient judges had not the latter continually absented themselves on the smallest pretexts. The charge of indolence was also frequently brought against the magistrates of the Audiencia of Manila.
[200] See Colección legislativa de España, LXIV, 105-147 (Royal Decree of January 30, 1855). Cédula of December 6, 1858, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Diccionario de legislación ultramarina, VII, 69. Cédula of March 10, 1857, ibid., VIII, 39. Royal Decree of July 4, 1861, Colección legislativa de España. LXXXVI, 1-45. The basic principle of these reforms are to be found in the Constitution of 1812, Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, III, 408-458, and in Las Ordenanzas Nuevamente Formadas para el Régimen y Govierno interior de la Audiencia Nacional de Manila en cumplimiento de la Ley de 9 de Octre de 1812, sobre arreglo de tribunales. A. I., 106-4-19.
[201] Blair and Robertson, XX, 35-43, 147, 168, 196-198.
[202] Recopilación, 8-10-16.
[203] Cédulas of October 6, 1783, and of November 19, 1805, A. I., 105-2-18.
[204] See Cunningham, "Residencia in the Spanish colonies," in the Southwestern historical quarterly, XXI, 253-278.
[205] Ibid., 2-33, 1, 6; literally, a report on character of services.
[206] Ibid., 5-11.
[207] Ibid., notes 1 to 4.
[208] Ibid., 2-31-1.
[209] Ibid., 5-12-9.
[210] Ibid., 5-11-6; see also, 5-12-14.
[211] Ibid., 5-15-36 to 39; 7-1-10 to 13.
[212] Ibid., 5-12-7 to 9.
[213] Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 250-1. Special emphasis should be placed upon the last clause of the above definition. The periodical residencia was not the sole means for the removal of officials in the Spanish colonies. The conclusion seems to have been reached by many historians that officials were permitted to conduct themselves carelessly, running their offices to suit their own personal convenience from the date of their appointment, in the assurance that their tenure was sure until the termination of a specified term, and that the periodical residencia was the only occasion on which they might be held to answer for their sins. Only the most scant attention has been given by modern writers to the residencia. See Bourne, "Historical introduction," in Blair and Robertson, I, 50-52; Moses, Establishment of Spanish rule in America, 172; Vander Linden, L'expansion coloniale de l'Espagne, 349.
[214] Bourne, "Historical introduction," Blair and Robertson, I, 51-52; see De Pons, Voyage, II, 25; Churchill, Voyages, IV, 427-428; see also Barrows, "The governor general of the Philippines, under Spain and the United States," in The Pacific Ocean in history, 246.
[215] Recopilación, 7-1; 2-15-117.
[216] Ibid., 5-15-19.
[217] Ibid., 20.
[218] A receptor was a clerk of court, who on special authorization or commission of a tribunal was dispatched to institute judicial proceedings on behalf of the court.--Escriche, Diccionario, II, 794.
[219] Recopilación, 7-1-16.
[220] Ibid., 5-15-21.
[221] Ibid., 7-1-14.
[222] Ibid., 5-12-31.
[223] Ibid., 5-15-38.
[224] Fajardo to Felipe III, August 10, 1619; Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 276.
[225] The Marianas were the islands of the Ladrone Group situated 1200 miles east of the Philippines.
[226] Expedientes relativos á la residencia de Don Antonio Pimentel, Governador de las Marianas, A. I., 68-4-17 and 18.
[227] Recopilación, 5-15-3, 4, 8, 10-18.
[228] Ibid., 5-15-11, 24.
[229] Having been excused by the cédulas of July 7, 1789, and January 15, 1795, A. I., 105-2-5.
[230] Recopilación, 5-15, notes 4, 11. When the residencia of a viceroy or president was taken, the oidores were also held responsible for all opinions given conjointly with him in the acuerdo.
[231] Sinibaldo de Mas, the able Philippine critic of the nineteenth century, says in regard to the above characteristic of the Recopilación and its laws: "Since the Leyes de Indias are not a constitutional code, but a compilation made in the year 1754 [a footnote amends this statement with the information that the Recopilación was first made in 1681] of royal orders despatched at various epochs and by distinct monarchs, ... there results ... a confusion of jurisdictions."--Mas, Internal political condition of the Philippines, Blair and Robertson, LII, 70.
Dr. James Alexander Robertson, in his article on "Legaspi and Philippine colonization" (see American Historical Association, Annual report, 1907, I, 150 and note), characterizes the laws of the Indies as "that mass of contradictory legislation," largely "ecclesiastical in tone," ill-digested, and "utterly at variance with one another." Dr. Robertson also states that "it is from a too close following of these laws and a too great neglect of actual conditions that writers on the colonial policy of Spain have at times fallen into error." On the other hand, it may be said, that not enough use has been made by modern writers of the laws of the Indies, and there is need of such investigation as will test that oft-repeated statement that the laws of the Indies were not enforced. Up to the present, Latin American scholarship has been content with a rehashing of Helps and Prescott, for the early periods, omitting the seventeenth century and the greater part of the eighteenth altogether, and fixing on Juan y Ulloa, Robertson, and Humboldt as the great all-determining authorities for the latter periods of Spanish colonization. These, indeed, have been supplemented by a few ecclesiastical histories, each of which has been written to prove a particular thesis. The present writer dares to believe, after some attempt to harmonize the laws of the Indies with actual practice, that these laws were actually used as a basis of colonial government, and that, while not always effectively enforced, they were by no means a dead-letter until Spain actually lost her colonies and are not today, for it is easy to see in the laws of the Indies the fundamentals of the institutions of present-day Spanish America.
[232] Recopilación, 5-15-1.
[233] Cédula of August 24, 1799, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, III, 280-281.
[234] Papeles relativos á la residencia del gobernador Salcedo. Inventario, op. cit.; also A. I., 67-6-10, 67-6-11, 67-3-4.
[235] Since all legal advice was furnished the governor by his asesor, Coloma would be examining his own acts.
[236] Recopilación, 2-18-27.
[237] Cédula of June 17, 1671, A. I., 82-6-10. In view of these proceedings, Salcedo's letter of June 25, 1665, in praise of the services of Coloma and Montemayor is interesting (A. I., 67-6-9).
[238] Recopilación, 5-12-8; 2-16-46, provided for appeal of cases carrying death penalty.
[239] Ibid., 5-12-31.
[240] Ibid., 5-15-38.
[241] Ibid., 39.
[242] Ibid., 2-2-58.
[243] Ibid., 64.
[244] Ibid., 5-15-3.
[245] There were two kinds of bonds, those posted at the beginning of a term of office, and special bonds of residencia, given at the time of that investigation. The last-mentioned were not required if the office were not a responsible one or if the charges were not sufficiently serious.
[246] Recopilación, 5-15-3; this cédula was annulled by that of May 21, 1787; see note to law 3 of the same title.
[247] King to Basco y Vargas, December 30, 1776 (A. I., 107-5-20). These annual deductions of one-fifth were first authorized on August 26, 1757, on the recommendation of the Council of the Indies. They were discontinued by the consulta of March 2, 1773, it being ordered that governors should only post the customary bonds with the president of the Council of the Indies. We see here that the practice was restored on December 30, 1776. This requirement seems to have been confined to governors of the Philippines (A. I., 105-2-21).
[248] Recopilación, 8-19; see notes 11 and 13,