History of California, Volume I, Part 65

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 852

USA > California > History of California, Volume I > Part 65
USA > California > History of California, Volume I > Part 65

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

6 Sept. 30, 1796, bishop to Lasuen, confirming faculties. Dec. 16th, Lasuen to bishop, expressing thanks. March 20, 1797, Lasuen takes the oath as vicario foraneo before P. Arenaza. June 19th, bishop reserves the right of granting divorce and some other episcopal faculties. Arch. Sta Búr- bara, MS., xii. 192-8. Dec. 18, 1796, Lasuen's circular to the padres. Id., xi. 139-41. March 20, 1797, Lasuen notifies Borica. Is only awaiting the license and blessing of the guardian. Arch. Arzobispado, MS., i. 45. March 22d, B. to Lasnen, will proclaim him juez vicario eclesiástico in the pre- sidios. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 184-5. June 20th, B. says the title of vicar must be presented to the government. Id., vi. 192-3. It appears that cas- trense powers were conferred by Lasuen on only seven friars. Arch. Sta Bár- bara, MIS., xi. 145-6.

"Oct. 15, 1795, Lasuen's patente de Comision del Santo Oficio sent from Mexico. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 56. Several edicts of 1795, 1797, and 1800 in Arch. Misiones, MS., i. 187-8, 228; Doc. Hist. Cul., MS., iv. 67-8. In offences of which the inquisition had cognizance the natives were not directly subject to that tribunal but to the provisor de Indias, who, with the knowledge of the inquisition, acted as judge. Privilegios de Indios, MS., 6. Some additional items on ceclesiastical matters are given later in this chapter. 8 Revilla Gigedo, Carta sobre misiones de 27 de Diciembre de 1793, in Dice. Univ., v. 427-30; also MS., i. See also chap. xxiv. of this volume. Oct. 22, 1794, viceroy to governor, urging compliance with royal order of March 21, 1787, which required attention to mission welfare and reports every two or three years on mission progress. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xi. 203. July 28, 1795, Branciforte sends Borica a copy of his predecessor's report of 1793 to serve as a guide for new reports; and also calls for suggestions. St. Pap., Miss, and Cof., MS., i. 1. Jan. 2, 1795, Lasuen in a circular says the council of the Indies have read the mission reports and thank ns in king's name for progress made, which is great compared with other missions with better advantages. The guardian sends the thanks of the college. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., ix. 320-1.

580

MISSION PROGRESS.

from California was called upon by the viceroy for a report on the condition of the country, which was rendered May 11, 1796, but contained little of value respecting the missions. Salazar estimated the wealth of the Franciscan establishments at $800,000 in build- ings and chattels ; but he complained that progress was impeded by the excessive labors imposed upon the friars; also by the preference shown to settlers in the purchase of supplies.9

On the subject of secularization, not referring par- ticularly to California, Revilla Gigedo expressed his dissatisfaction with the condition of such missions as had been given up to the clergy. He would take no steps in that direction without a better prospect of success. Curates could do no better than friars in the instruction and improvement of the natives.10 In a letter of 1796 Governor Borica says that according to the laws, the natives are to be free from tutelage at the end of ten years, the missions then becoming doctrinas; "but those of New California at the rate they are advancing will not reach the goal in ten centuries; the reason, God knows, and men know something about it."11

Two special projects for the advancement of Cali- fornian interests were devised in Mexico during the decade; and both, being opposed by the Franciscan authorities, seem to have been given up at the end of 1797. The first was to establish a Carmelite monas- tery at San Francisco, which was to consist of twelve friars, and cost from $25,000 to $30,000. It was to be supported by an agricultural establishment, become the nucleus of a settlement, and thus promote both the colonization of the country and the civilization of the natives, to say nothing of the usefulness of the monastery towers to navigators as landmarks. This matter was referred to two friars who had been in

9 Salazar, Condicion Actual de Cal., Informe General al Virey, 11 de Mayo 1796, MS.

10 Revilla Gigedo, Carta de 1793, MS., 25.

11 Aug. 3, 1796, Borica to Alberni. Prov. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., xxiv. 7, S.

581

PROJECTS DEFEATED.

California and who reported adversely. The second projeet was to establish a hacienda of the pious fund in Jacopin Valley near San Diego, but the guardian of San Fernando pronounced the scheme impractica- ble if not absurd. The general argument of the Franciscans on these questions was, that so far as the conversion of the natives was concerned the old methods were sufficient, and any innovation would be dangerous; and that for the promotion of settlement by gente de razon the new establishments would have no advantages over the old, which were far from pros- perous.12

The regulation of 1781, as we have seen, provided for the gradual reduction of the ministers to one at each mission. Until this was effected friars retiring or dying were not to be replaced. This regulation was disregarded by the friars and the secular author- ities made no attempt to enforce it. The subject came up and was discussed during this decade, but nothing was effected. The law remained unchanged, and was practically disregarded as before.13 Respecting the re-

12 Dec. 4, 1795, viceroy to governor, in Prov. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 34; Mugártegui and Peña, Parecer sobre el Establecimiento de un Convento en el Puerto de San Francisco, 28 de Enero de 1797, MS. These padres declare that aid from the Carmelites in founding new missions would be acceptable. Ca- leja, Respuesta del Guardian al Firey sobre Proyectos de California, 1797, MS. This report, dated Oct. 23d, is chiefly devoted to another subject, of which more anon. It is noticeable that the guardian speaks very ironically of the 'domesticated' gentiles whose services it was proposed to utilize in the new establishments, greatly exaggerating the danger of the old missions and pueblos from the natives, and implying without intending to do so that not much had been effected by nearly 30 years of missionary work. Borica also disapproved of the hacienda because there would be no market for produce. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 61.

13 Revilla Gigedo, Carta de 1793, 24, disapproves the reduction, among other reasons because it would favor immorality on the part of the friars. April 30, 1796, the guardian writes to Lasuen that the fiscal wants to know the reasons for non-compliance with the reglamento; consequently all the docu- ments on the subject are needed, only one or two being in the college archives. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 275-6. Nov. 16, 1797, Borica to viceroy, thinks the matter should be settled, as there is a deficit of $52,142 in the mission fund. He suggests that two padres be allowed to each mission, but that only one sínodo of $400 be divided between them, since they now spend no more than that on themselves. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 60-1. Sept. 3, 1699, Padre Lull, Exposicion del Guardian sobre la reduccion de Misioneros en California, 1790, MS., presents the usual arguments against reducing the number of mission- aries, and also opposes Borica's scheme of reducing the sinodo, not only because it is contrary to the king's intentions, but because, while, as Borica says, the

582

MISSION PROGRESS.

tirement of friars to Mexico there was now no contro- versy between the secular and Franciscan authorities, because the latter were considerably troubled to keep the missionaries at their posts, and welcomed even secular interference to aid in the task. In 1795 there came a royal order that the governor and president might grant license to retire for due and certified cause without waiting for a report from Mexico; but before the end of this decade this rule seems to have been modified.14 Since 1787 and down to 1794 friars coming to or returning from California were allowed two hundred dollars for travelling expenses on land and ninety-five cents per day while on the water. Subsequently their stipends were allowed to cover the time consumed on the journey provided there were no unnecessary delays.15

two priests spend less than $400 on themselves they spend the remainder for the natives, and this is praetieally the only way of obtaining necessary arti- cles since there is no market for mission produee. In 1800, or perhaps later, Lasuen in a letter to the guardian argues the same side of the ease most earnestly, speaks rather bitterly of any scheme to ceonomize on the pay of poor over-worked friars when the king is so liberal in other expenses, and re- peats his old determination to retire if the ehange be insisted on. Lasuen, Cor- respondencia, MS., 329-33.

141793, a priest retired on a provisional license of the comandante at Mon- terey. Arch. Arzobispado, MS., i. 33. 1794, the 10 years of service to count from the date of embarking from Spain. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., vi. 294- 5. Royal orders referred to in my text dated Sept. 16, 1794. Sent from Mex- ico June 8, 1795. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 124-5. Just before the receipt of this order Boriea refuses Danti's petition to retire until leave is obtained from Mexico. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 149. Dee. 9, 1797, viceroy to the guar- dian, friars must not go to Mexico to solicit license to retire to Spain. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 59. Sept. 1, 1800, governor to viceroy, understands that no leave to retire is to be given, even on expiration of term, until substi- tutes arrive. The priests are not pleased at this. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xxi. 42.

15 On measures adopted 1786-8, see Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., x. 267-70; xi. 52-3, 241-2; xii. 40-1; Prov. St. Pap., MS., vi. 202-3; viii. 1-3. It seems that the $200 was to be paid, like the stipend, from the pious fund, which in 1787 was charged with $3,944 for friars' travelling expenses for the past 20 years. In December 1793 the guardian attempts to secure travelling expenses for supernumerary friars going to California, and sueeeeds after some corre- spondenee iu getting an advance of their stipend to pay those expenses, though their stipend would eease on arrival until assigned to a mission. From this correspondenee it appears that by royal order of April 20, 1793, the sti- pend began on the date of departure from Mexico. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 246-51. By order of Sept. 16, 1794, the stipend was extended to date of arrival in Mexico on return and all gratuities for travelling expenses were abolished. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 124-5; Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., ix. 324-5; Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., xxviii. date July 20, 1795. The friars subsequently had much trouble on account of the naval authorities who demanded $2.25 per day instead of 95 ets. Moreover the government in some

583

MISSIONARY ESCORTS.

Many of the old matters of dispute still remained open, but as a rule they gave rise to no very bitter controversy during this period. No regular chaplains were appointed, though Borica made an effort to secure such appointments; neither does it appear that the friars got any pay for attending to the spiritual interests of soldiers and settlers.16 In the matter of mission escorts and their duties there were no radical changes and few disputes. The soldiers were in- structed to treat the padres always with respect and evidently did so, the chief complaint being that they would not always serve as vaqueros and servants of all work, a refusal the padres could never quite un- derstand. The guard furnished to a friar engaged in his several duties abroad was still regulated by the governor's or commandant's instructions, or in some cases left to the corporal's discretion. The friars desired discretionary powers, but submitted. The strict rule of Fages that no soldier on escort duty should sleep away from the mission was relaxed some- what in urgent cases by the viceroy's orders; but the order that no soldier should be sent after fugitive natives or allowed to visit the rancherías of gentiles without superior command was strictly enforced, and the friars, now that their temper had cooled a little, doubtless recognized the necessity of such a rule. The instructions of Borica to the guards show an earnest desire to maintain harmonious relations with the missionaries, as well as a prudent and wise policy toward the gentiles. Doubtless the patience of the friars was often sorely tried by the indolence

cases when the return voyage was very long by no fault of the priests refused to pay the full stipend as per royal order. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., ix. 41-5, 23-5.

16 Sept 26, 1793, governor to viceroy asking for a friar for each presidio, as the missionaries have too much to attend to. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xxi. 117. June 18, 1794, viceroy must have more information before deciding. Id., xi. 181-2. November 28th, gov. circulates nine questions ou the performance of chaplain's duties by padres; and April 3, 1795, explains more fully to the V. R. asking again for chaplains at a salary of $400. Prov. Rec., MS., iv. 122; vi. 41-2. Nothing more is heard from Mexico. June 17, 1796, Comandante Goycocchea complains of the padres having declined to hear confessions. St. Pap., Sac., MS., ix. 73.

584

MISSION PROGRESS.

and insolence of individual soldiers, but of the govern- ment they had no cause to complain. The guards were reduced in most of the old missions on the estab- lishing of new ones, and this brought out a protest from the Franciscans, which was in some instances successful.17

Desertion of neophytes became prevalent, especially in the northern missions, the pretended motive of the fugitives, and in some instances the real one, being ill-treatment, overwork, and hunger; but oftener the true cause of apostasy was a longing for the old free- dom and dread of the terrible death-rate in the mis- sion communities. As we have seen, the soldiers of the guard were not allowed to pursue runaways; neither was the practice of sending neophytes after them, approved by Fages, allowed during Borica's rule. Gentiles might be bribed to bring them in;

17 Borica, Instruccion para la Escolta de San Juan Bautista, 1797, MS. This document was ordered to be posted in every mission for the guidance of the corporal. Sal, Instruccion al Cabo de Sta Cruz, 1791, MS .; Fages, Instruc. para la Escolta de Purísima, 1788, MS .; Id., Instruc. para S. Miguel, 1787, MS. Prohibition of escorts for long distances, approved by king, Jan. 13, 1790. Fages, Papel de Puntos, MS., 155. 1794, soldiers to be alternated in escolta and presidio service. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xii. 8; Prov. Rec., MS., v. 48. Muskets to be fired and reloaded once a week. Some complaint of failure to keep watch at night. No escorts for long distances. Arrillaga, Papel de Puntos, MS., 196-7. May 15, 1795, escorts of padres must return to mission same day. Prov. Rec., MS., iv. 133. June 3d, Borica to viceroy. The padres still ask for escorts to visit rancherías; but I attribute present tranquillity to the measures of my predecessor and refuse. We must not risk our peace in the hands of a careless soldier. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 52. Oct. 5th, approval of V. R. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 42-3; but on Nov. 7th the V. R., on petition of the guardian, recommends concessions in urgent cases, always with due prudence. Id., xiii. 65-6. On this ground, Lasuen, March 5, 1796, informs the padres that the old restriction has been removed, the matter never having been properly understood in Mexico before. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 56; Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 137. Corporal at Soledad had to give monthly reports on manufactures, etc. Prov. Rec., MS., iv. 179. Must keep a diary of events to be sent in every month. St. Pap., Sac., MS., vi. 1. Escoltas to build themselves houses to save paying rent. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xiv. 175. June 9, 1796, padres to have escorts on journeys, or on going to confess, etc., but not to pursue fugitives. Prov. Rec., MS., iv. 64; v. 86. No aid to padres to punish Indians unless two agree; but to alle- viate suffering the request of one to suffice. Id., v. 89. April 29, 1797, Argüello reprimands a corporal for having furnished only one soldier to escort seven padres. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xvi. 57. Lasuen, Informe Bienal, 1797-8, MS., 67-8, objects to the reduction of the guard in the old missions. Oct. 11, 1799, the guardian complained to the V. R. that the escoltas were too small; and the report was sent to Borica on Dec. 17th. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 148-9.

585

REGULATIONS.

and occasionally an expedition of presidio soldiers was sent out to make a wholesale collection of apostates, but such raids were not yet very frequent. Kind treatment of returned fugitives was required by the governor, and was to a large extent enforced. Neo- phytes sometimes stowed themselves away on the San Blas vessels, or escaped by land to Sonora.18

The laws required an alcalde and several regidores to be elected annually in each mission, a policy which had in earlier times met with considerable opposition from the padres, who insisted that the natives were by no means fitted for self-government even to this slight extent. After 1792 these elections ceased alto- gether until Borica brought up the matter in 1796 and insisted with the viceroy's approval on the en- forcement of the law. President Lasuen obeyed, but in his instructions to the padres he clearly indi- cated that the election was to be a mere formality and the authority of the native officials merely nom- inal, the whole system being intended simply for the instruction of the neophytes in the forms of civil government with a view to the time when the missions should be secularized. After 1796 the elections were regularly reported to the governor each year, and the padres sometimes caused the choice to fall on a trusty neophyte who could be allowed to exercise slight authority as a kind of overseer. The gov-

18 1791, Fages' poliey of sending neophytes. Fages, Papel de Puntos, MS., 154-5. Jan. 15, 1794, governor to viceroy. Progress has been made in the reduction of gentiles and fugitives by gentle measures. A chief has even brought in fugitives voluntarily. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xxi. 131. 1793, Bo- rica approves sending pagans after fugitives. Prov. Rec., MS., v. 69. 1796, fugitives to be treated well. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xix. 176. 1797, viceroy forbids any Indian being taken to Mexico. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 195. 1798, ninety fugitives of Santa Cruz recovered by soldiers. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xvii. 101. Nov. 8, 1798, viceroy to Lasuen, disapproves the sending of neophytes after fugitives, except in extreme cases after consultation with the governor. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., vi. 75. Mar. 4, 1799, Lasuen instructs the padres accordingly. Id., xi. 146-7; Lasuen's original order in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 71-3. July 22, 1799, governor to padres of San Juan. They may send Indians after fugitives to peaceful rancherías. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 242. Flight of Indians to San Blas and Sonora. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xi. 209; xxi. 183; Prov. Rec., MS., iv. 58. On fugitives from San Francisco where the most trouble occurred see chapter xxxi. of this volume.

586

MISSION PROGRESS.

ernment did not choose to interfere so long as the prescribed formalities were complied with.19 The sec- ular authorities still found fault because the neophytes were permitted to ride and thus fitted to be formi- dable foes in the future; but the friars, while appreci- ating the danger and admitting that one white man was equal to six or cight Indians to care for their herds, claimed that as there were no Spaniards to be had even if the missions were able to pay for their services, they must necessarily employ natives as vaqueros.20 In two local controversies elsewhere narrated, that is to say at Santa Clara respecting boundary lines be- tween mission and pueblo and at San Francisco respecting the establishment of the rancho del rey, the friars were victorious in the first and defeated in the second, receiving strict justice at the hands of the authorities in California as well as in Mexico. Indeed, throughout this decade there was an evident disposition on the part of viceroy and governor to promote friendly relations; while guardian and presi- dent, especially the latter, were much more disposed than formerly to conciliatory methods.21

19 On mission alcaldes before 1790 see Prov. Rec., MS., i, 120; iii. 71, 170; Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., x. 94-6. Sept. 22, 1796, Borica to Lasuen and to the padres, requiring compliance with the law. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 173; Sta Cruz, Parroquia, MS., 16; Arch. Arzobispado, MS., i. 44. Nov. 2, 1796, Lasuen's circular to the padres. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 138-9; vi. 118- 19. Nov. 19, 1796, Borica to viceroy stating his action in the matter. St. Pap., Sac., MS., iv. 66-7. Dec. 20, 1797, viceroy to Lasuen. Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., x. 90-3. Dec. 2, 1796, Borica to Lasuen, approving the election of neo- phyte alcaldes and regidores who are to act generally under the padres' direc- tion, but in criminal matters under the corporal of the escolta. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 178-9. Jan. 7, 1797, Borica orders padres of San Diego to depose a bad alcalde and elect a new one. Id. March 30, 1798, Borica tells padres of Soledad they were wrong in changing alcaldes without submitting the case to the government. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 210.

2" This matter was pretty well settled before 1796 so far as the missions were concerned. Prov. Rec., MS., iii. 64-5,87; Arch. Sta Bárbara, MS., xi. 392- G; viii. 63. May 28, 1791, the governor says the Indians are getting too much meat to eat, are becoming too skilful riders, and are acquiring the insolence of Apaches. Prov. St. Pap., MS., x. 150. Strict orders against any gentile or any Indian servant of soldier or settler being allowed to ride or to have arms. S. José, Arch., MS., ii. 86; iii. 65.

21 For the controversies at Santa Clara and San Francisco see chapter xxxi., this volume. Revilla Gigedo, Carta de 1793, MS., 24-5, dwells on the importance of promoting harmony with the friars. Jan. 2, 1795, Lasuen in a circular orders the padres to forward to him all consultations of the gov-

587

HORRA'S CHARGES.

The leading controversy of the decade in Franciscan circles resulted from certain charges made against the missionaries by one of their own number, though in subsequent investigations the secular authorities be- came involved. The results of these investigations present the best information extant respecting the de- tails of the mission routine in certain of its phases, and they will be used elsewhere in a chapter devoted to the subject; but here I present the matter only in a general way as a prominent historical event and as illustrating the missionary policy of the time. In 1797 Padre Antonio de la Concepcion Horra, who had come to California the same year, was sent back to Mexico by President Lasuen on a charge of insanity. Back at the college on July 12, 1798, Horra addressed a memorial to the viceroy in which, besides complain- ing bitterly of the treatment to which he had been personally subjected on a false charge of insanity, he made some serious charges against the Californian friars of cruelty and mismanagement. There was nothing in the document to indicate that the writer was of unsound mind, unless it was his closing request to be sent away because his life would be in danger if it were known that he had revealed prevalent abuses to the viceroy.22

ernor. Arch. Sta Bárbara, xi. 135. Catalá's reported hostility to settlers rebuked. Prov. Rec., MS., vi. 169-70. In case of innovations the padres to be cantious and consult the president. Lasuen, Correspondencia, MS., 318-19. Dec. 14, 1796, Borica to Goycoechea, he must give the padres all needed aid by viceroy's order. Prov. Rec., MS. iv. 86. Jan. 1797, corporals Mo- raga and Vallejo forced to apologize to Catalá for their rudeness. Id., vi. 179-80; iv. 204-5. A padre must settle bis troubles with a companion or appeal to the prelate; the governor will not interfere in such matters. Id., vi. 197.

22 Horra, Representacion al Virey contra los Misioneros de California, 1798, MS. Sitjar, Lasucn, and Mignel were the particular objects of Horra's wrath. Sitjar, offended at Padre Concepcion's criticisms, went to his inti- mate friend Lasuen, who believed the absurd story of insanity, and sent Miguel who treated him as a maniac, even laying violent hands on him and maltreating him all the way from San Miguel to Monterey where he was · thrown into a fever, all of which could be proved by Peyri, the soldiers, and the surgeon. He cites many witnesses including Gov. Borica to prove that he is not mad, and others to prove his past services; but he can get no jus- tice at the college because all there are friends of Lasuen. See also chapter xxvi., on Padre Horra's life and experience in California.

588

MISSION PROGRESS.

On August 31st the viceroy sent the representa- tions of Horra to Borica, who was ordered to investi- gate and report on the truth of the charges. Borica accordingly despatched private instructions to the four commandants to send in answers to fifteen ques- tions propounded on the manner in which the friars were discharging their duties.23 This was on December 3d, and before the end of the month the required reports were made by Argüello, Goycoechea, Sal, and Acting Comandante Rodriguez; while Grajera sent in his reply in March 1799. These replies, especially those of Goycoechea and Sal, went far to support some of the mad friar's accusations.24 The report which Borica probably made to the viceroy on receipt of his subor- dinates' statements is unfortunately not extant. 25 It was not apparently until this report, including those of the commandants, reached Mexico that anything whatever was known at the college of Horra's repre- sentation against the friars or of the resulting investi- gations. In February 1799 the guardian sent Lasuen a statement of the charges,26 and a little later copies of other documents which were lost in crossing the gulf of California, and Lasuen did not receive the fifteen questions and the commandants' replies until September 1800. In October Tapis and Cortés of Santa Bárbara sent in to the president a long and complete reply to Goycoechea, whose statements had been more full than those of the others and slightly

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of California, Volume I, Part 65

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe Publication date: 1885 Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers Number of Pages: 852

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 852