Chapter V

, note 20, of this work.

[259] This residencia was held under the same laws that had prevailed throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A feature common to them all, particularly, was the fact that the regent, or some other colonial magistrate conducted the investigation and gave sentence, which might be appealed to the Council of the Indies. This gave an opportunity for great injustice to be done to the governor by his enemies, and it did not give him an impartial hearing. The laws of 1799 still permitted a local magistrate to collect the evidence, but the decision was rendered by the Council of the Indies.

[260] Audiencia to the King, June 28, 1791, A. I., 108-4-18.

[261] Instructions to Amparán, February 19, 1792, A. I., 105-2-10.

[262] Instructions were also given at the same time for investigations of the official conduct of numerous persons who had been identified with the government of Marquina. Among these were Helarión Pastor, fiscal de la real hacienda. Manuel de Sota, contador de cuentas. Francisco Múñoz, teniente del rey. Rufino Suárez Rivera, asesor, and Miguel Formento, clerk of the treasury. A separate commission was made for the residencia of each of these.

[263] The just and honorable conduct of Marquina's successor on this occasion may be contrasted with that of his various predecessors, whose unfairness, bigotry, and stupidity had caused governors Corcuera, Silva, and Torralba, victims of residencia, to be seized, imprisoned, and exiled without opportunities for defense, while their investigations were being conducted. This case serves well to illustrate the fact that by the close of the eighteenth century the residencia had grown more humane.

[264] He was charged with having entered into a conspiracy with an Armenian merchant to secure trade which should have gone to Spanish merchants. In this particular venture he had made a profit of 16,000 pesos and in so doing he had not only violated the laws of the Indies which forbade officials to trade (Recopilación, 2-16-54, 62), but he had connived at the infraction of another law which forbade trade to foreigners (ibid., 9-27-1, 5, 7 and note 2).

[265] It is an interesting commentary on Spanish methods that, notwithstanding Marquina's misgovernment in the Philippines, he was promoted to the post of viceroy of New Spain, which position he held from 1800 to 1803.

Desdevises du Dezert, in his article on "Vice-rois et capitaines généraux des Indes espagnoles" (Revue historique, CXXV, 241), shows that Marquina continued his peculations while viceroy of New Spain, engaging in the smuggling trade with Jamaica, and enriching himself to the extent that in thirty-two months he was able to send twelve million pesos on his own account to Spain. Desdevises du Dezert inadvertently refers to Marquina as having come from the Marianas to Mexico. He came from the Philippines and not from the Marianas.

[266] Recopilación, 5-15, notes 4 and 5.

[267] Reales resoluciones del Consejo, 4 de Marzo, 1794, A. I., 106-4-18; Royal Order of January 18, 1848, Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 290.

[268] These discounts were "considered subversive of their authority [that of the governors]; ... the best guarantee of their acts is not a discount of some thousands of pesos, which is always penurious when compared with the honor and dignity of the persons called, on account of their elevated character and distinguished services, to hold these posts, and if, in former times, this practice had some foundation in the tardiness of communication between the Peninsula and these provinces, it does not exist today in view of the frequency of communication which enables said authorities to consult with the government of Her Majesty in all the steps which are considered necessary in the territory of their command."--Royal order of July 7, 1860, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 287.

[269] Recopilación, 5-15-20.

[270] Ibid., 4.

[271] Ibid., 5-2-1, 2, 7.

[272] Ibid., 5-15-19.

[273] Ibid., 7-1-16; 5-15-21.

[274] Ibid., 2-15-69; see 2-2-58, 64.

[275] King to the Fiscal, September 29, 1788, A. I., 105-2-10.

[276] King to the Audiencia, October 6, 1806, A. I., 105-2-18.

[277] Recopilación, 2-18-27.

[278] Ibid., 5-15, note 4.

[279] Ibid., 5-15-27 to 49.

[280] Ibid., 8-1-28; 5-15-35. Heavy penalties were prescribed for those who offered insecure financial guarantees (ibid., 5-15-33 to 36).

[281] Ibid., 34.

[282] Ibid., 39, 40.

[283] Expediente de Don Frco. Fernández Zéndera, alcalde mayor y capitán de guerra de la provincia de Ilocos. ... su residencia pendiente de informe de la audiencia, 1794, A. I., 106-5-4 and 5. The papers relating to this trial easily aggregate 4000 pages.

[284] It was said that he had shown favoritism in his dealings with some of the barangay (district) chiefs, allowing them unbridled license in the collection of tribute and in the enforcement of compulsory labor, most of which they utilized for their own, or for his, benefit. One chief was said to have gone so far as to forcibly take carabaos from the natives when the latter were working them in the fields. Zéndera had, of course, extended favors to these barangay chiefs in exchange for reciprocal advantages. (The alcaldes mayores ruled the native population through these chiefs at this time. Later they utilized the gobernadorcillos, who were native or mestizo governors of the small towns.--See Malcolm, The government of the Philippine Islands, 64-72.)

It was also charged that he had allowed cock-fights whenever requested, instead of restricting these to holidays and Sundays as the law prescribed. On these occasions he collected two reales from each entrant, and in addition he took the slain birds, alleging that they were for the consumption of the inmates of the provincial prison. Testimony was produced to show that the prisoners had never eaten fowl.

[285] In taking the residencias of corregidores and alcaldes mayores the audiencia frequently took great responsibility upon itself. On July 10, 1800, on taking the residencia of Luís Rodríguez Varela, alcalde mayor of Pangasinán, the audiencia suspended the decoration of the pequeña cruz, which had been conferred upon this official by the royal authority. The deprivation, in this case, was tentative, pending the investigation of the charges which had been made of shortages in the finances of his province.--Audiencia to the King, July 10, 1800, A. I., 106-4-18.

[286] The original sentence probably denied to Zéndera the privilege of holding the office of alcalde mayor only, since he occupied the post of regidor of the city of Manila, pending the appeal of his case to the Council of the Indies. It is evident, therefore, that the sentence which was pronounced upon Zéndera did not apply to all positions of honor and trust.

[287] Cédula of August 24, 1799, Recopilación, 5-15, notes 4 and 5; see also Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 282.

[288] Escriche, Diccionario. I, 578; see also royal order of November 20, 1841, and of January 18, 1848, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 282; 290. When the Intendancy was established in 1784-7, an effort was made by the newly created officials to escape the residencia. The entire term of the first intendant, Carvajal (or Carbajal), had been devoted to an assertion of his independence of the governor and audiencia. Carvajal interpreted the law requiring all officials of the government to give residencia every five years to the Department of Justice as not applying to him or his subordinates. He pointed to the stipulation in the ordinance which created his department, and established its independence of the executive and judiciary. The king disapproved of his attitude and ordered that henceforth the officials of real hacienda should give residencia in the same manner as other officials, in accordance with the laws of the Indies. (King to Carvajal. July 29, 1788, A. I., 107-5-19, citing Recopilación, 2-15-69; 5-15-15 and Ordenanza de Intendentes de Buenos Ayres, Art. 305.) This decree ordered that the residencias of the intendants and their assistants should be submitted to the audiencia. The cédula of August 24, 1799, so frequently cited in this chapter, gave final jurisdiction to the audiencia over the residencias of intendentes-corregidores, but it decreed that superintendents should give residencia directly to the Council of the Indies.

[289] Martínez Alcubilla (Diccionario, XI, 477) and Escriche (Diccionario, II, 819) state that the cédula of August 24, 1799, abolished the residencia. The latter states that the residencia was eliminated because of the corruption of judges, and as the judges of residencia had proved to be a grave infliction on the towns, mistreating witnesses and defendants on many occasions, it was thought advisable to discontinue the practice of holding these investigations. Escriche also quotes extracts from the laws of August 24, 1799, September 26, 1835, and November 20, 1841, wherein were provided regulations for the future continuance of the residencia. Cases involving viceroys, captains-general, and presidents of audiencias were to be tried in the Supreme Tribunal of Justice in first instance. Alcaldes mayores, corregidores, military and political governors who were not presidents were to be tried in the audiencias which exercised jurisdiction over their districts.

[290] See Cédula of July 7, 1860, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, III, 287; royal order of July 25, 1865, ibid., X, 99; royal order of October 25, 1870, Colección legislativa, CV, 442-465.

The eminent authority, Manuel Bernáldez Pizarro, writing from Manila on April 26, 1827, deplored the laxity which was characteristic of the method of conducting trials of residencia, and recommended that they be made more effective and just. He criticized especially the prevailing system of holding the alcaldes mayores to a strict accountability; who, he wrote, "as they have permission to trade, are more tempted to evade or infringe the laws; and many persons are appointed to that office 'who lack all the qualifications necessary for any public office whatever,' ... not only have they used their authority to possess themselves of the property of the Indians ... and defrauded the Indians with unjust exactions; but they have humiliated the religious, stolen moneys from the king ... [and] have thrown the provinces into a condition of effervescence and of conspiracy against the government." (Blair and Robertson, LI, 212, 212-213.) Pizarro recommended a more stringent residencia as a means of remedying these defects.

[291] Recopilación, 5-15-17 and 18; 9-45-42.

[292] Governor to Council of the Indies, January 4, 1710, A. I., 68-4-15.

[293] Concepción, XI, 132-234 (Anson's depredations).

[294] Recopilación, 2-16-40; see also 7-1-15.

[295] Law of November 10, 1818, A. I., 106-4-19; see Real instrucción dada á los regentes de las audiencias, 20 de Junio de 1776, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, VII, 22-28; Zamora y Coronado, Apéndice. 19-33.

[296] A tax on silver, gold and other metals (as well as on pearls) mined in the Indies. This tax was first authorized on February 5, 1504 (Recopilación, 8-10-1). Philip II conceded a commutation of this tax to ten per cent in favor of adelantados, their successors and other early settlers (ibid., 4-3-19). A draft of a letter exists in A. I., 106-6-6, written about 1585 by Governor Sande of the Philippines, asking for an extension of this dispensation.--See Blair and Robertson, IV, 87, par. 114 and note. On August 8, 1609, the king inquired of the Manila audiencia whether the tax was a fifth or a tenth.--A. I., 102-2-1.

[297] Ibid., 2-16-19 to 22.

[298] Ibid., 23.

[299] Ibid., 24. This junta is to be distinguished from the real contaduría, which was composed of the oficiales reales. See Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, 246.

[300] This was the junta superior de la real hacienda, created for Manila by the law of July 24, 1784. It was one of the reforms of the intendancy. It cannot be said, however, that these reforms became effective until 1787, though the cédulas of July 17 and 24, 1784, which ordered them, were received in Manila on December 5, 1785. These cédulas ordered the formation of a government locally, which would conform to the general principles of the intendancy and which were laid down in the cédulas referred to. These plans had to be referred to Spain on appeal. Subsequently the Ordinance of Intendants of Buenos Ayres was applied to the Philippines.--A. I., 107-5-14. Until January 11, 1791, all appeals from the junta superior were heard in the Audiencia of Manila. The cédula of that date, received in Manila on June 30, 1793, ordered that such appeals should be carried to the Council of the Indies.--A. I., 107-5-22. The junta superior de real hacienda did much toward relieving the audiencia of its advisory functions as in matters of finance and commerce. Many evidences of this may be noted in the reports and correspondence of the superintendente de real hacienda de Manila.--A. I., 107-5-14; 107-5-15 to 31; 107-6-1 to 31; 107-7-1 to 21. Priestley (José de Gálvez, 338-9) shows that even after the establishment of the intendancy in New Spain, the audiencia retained the administration of crown lands, notwithstanding the provisions of the new laws which ordered that they should be controlled by the junta superior. See also ibid., 302-3.

[301] Recopilación, 2-16-34.

[302] Ibid., 2-15-169.

[303] Ibid., 2-31-1 to 3.

[304] Ibid., 8-19 (general subject of medias anatas). Holders of ecclesiastical benefices were subsequently obliged to pay the media anata, although they were especially exempted by the cédula of June 2, 1632. The media anata (civil and ecclesiastical) was paid until December 28, 1846, when this tax, together with the lanza (a tax formerly paid by the nobility, but subsequently required of all classes in lieu of military service) was abolished (Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, I, 407).

[305] Ibid., 8-19-1 and 2.

[306] The cédula of July 3, 1664, reorganized the system of medias anatas, authorizing their division into two separate allotments, one payable at the court on the appointment of the official concerned, and the second within or at the end of eighteen months after his appointment, at the capital of the district wherein he served. Guarantees had to be given that the second payment would be made when due, and interest was charged at the rate of eight per cent a year on the amount remaining to be paid (ibid., 4).

[307] Cédula of December 14, 1776, A. I., 105-2-16.

[308] The extensive use of the betel-nut by the natives of the Philippines encouraged the Spanish government to monopolize its production and sale, and a considerable revenue was derived from it. In 1786 the profit from the sale of betel was 16,770 pesos (Report of Intendant, January 8, 1788, A. I., 107-5-15), and the next year the sum collected was 15,207 pesos (Report of Intendant, June 21, 1789, 107-5-18). Other monopolies during the same period yielded as follows: Tobacco, 258,743 pesos; wine, 73,636 pesos; cockpits, 8,375 pesos; tributes, 174,494 pesos (Report of Intendant, June 21, 1789).

[309] Juez conservador (civil), a judge named por privilegio del rey, with private jurisdiction over the civil affairs of some community or guild, for the protection of its interests and estates or the collection of its rents (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 260).

[310] Recopilación, 3-3-35.

[311] Report on the establishment of the Intendancy in Manila, December 5, 1785, A. I., 107-5-19.

[312] Testimonio and transcript of the royal cédula of November 23, 1787; King to Marquina, June 15, 1791, A. I., 105-2-10.

[313] The first intendant, Ciriaco Gonzales Carvajal, was given the title of intendente de guerra y real hacienda, by virtue of the cédulas of July 17 and 24, 1784. By the reform of November 23, 1787, the duties of his office were united to those of the governor, whose title, under the new arrangement, was gobernador y capitán general y superintendente de la real hacienda (A. I., 105-3-5 and 107-5-19; see