History of California, Volume IV, Part 5

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 820

USA > California > History of California, Volume IV > Part 5

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).

DAMAGES PAID.

of arrest. They were provided with cartas de se- guridad, and the authorities were to afford facilities for verifying the accounts. Up to this point the English and American claimants appear to have been treated exactly alike, Barron having acted for the American consul, who was absent. The schooner Bolina was chartered for the trip, and the returning exiles, perhaps twenty in number, though probably a few did not find their way back till later, were landed at Monterey in July 1841.58 It is evident

58 June 3, 1841, Barron to Larkin, announcing the result and requesting him to aid in establishing claims. He implies clearly that money had been paid to Americans as well as Englishmen. Larkin, writing to the U. S. sec. of state in 1844, says also that some claims of both elasses were relinquished for $250 each. Id., Official Corresp., MS., ii. 5-6. Farnham, continuing his lies to the last, says they were tried again, ' and condemned to perpetual im- prisonment upon an island in a mountain lake of Mexico,' but were saved by the consul! Meadows, Graham Affair, MS., 28-30, was one of the men who got $250, which he represents as simply an advance made to those who wished to leave Tepic, those who remained getting $300, but in this he is in error, since his name does not appear in the later list of English claimants. July 22d, Comandante Flores at Monterey announces arrival of the Bolina with Graham and 18 others on July 20th. Vallejo, Doc., MS., x. 215. Alvarado, on July 29th, speaks of Graham and about 15 Englishmen having arrived, 40 (?) having been scattered. Id., x. 236. Those known to have been sent back at this time were Graham, Morris, Chard, Carmichael, Meadows, An- derson, O'Brien, Dove, Price, Chapel, Langlois, and Warner. There were others also, apparently, as they seem to have been in the country later. These were Barton, Bowles, Cooper, Frazer, Lewis, Lucas, MeGlone, and Peace. Perhaps McAllister and Maynard also returned. In most printed accounts it is stated that all, or nearly all, the exiles came back. Robinson, Life in Cal., 187-8, asserts that they came back well dressed and armed, and looking better than when they left. This writer, followed by Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 146-7, dates the return a year later, by the Columbine. Mofras, Explo- ration, i. 304-11, says the agreement was for each individual to receive $3 per day for his time, besides indemnity for losses of property. They came back exulting in their success and full of projects for vengeance against Alvarado and Castro. They would make another Texas of Cal. as soon as they were strong enough, being assured of the support of the U. S. Mofras makes out very erroneously that of the 46 prisoners sent away, 6 died, 31 returned, and 9 refused to return.

Marsh, Letter to Com. Jones, MS., 12-13, writes: 'The American consul did nothing, and seems to have been a perfect cipher. Two of the prisoners after their enlargement went to the city of Mexico, where the British minister made every exertion to obtain for these unfortunate men some remuneration from the Mexican govt for their losses and sufferings. The American minis- ter is understood to have done absolutely nothing.' Morris writes, Diary, MS., 41: 'They were compelled to charter a schooner, furnish her with every- thing necessary for the voyage, and bring us all back to Monterey, where we arrived on July 15 (?), 1841, to the very great surprise of many a treacherous Spaniard and foreigner.' Capt. Clifford, in Niles' Reg., Iviii. 371, says: 'Offi- cial accounts of this infamous transaction have been forwarded to the British and American governments by their respective ministers; and it is confidently hoped that prompt and energetic measures will be pursued to obtain ample HIST. CAL., VOL. IV. 3

ALVARADO'S RULE-THE GRAHAM AFFAIR.

that President Bustamante had been unwilling to complicate existing troubles by engaging in a contro- versy with foreign powers.

Meanwhile, José Castro was subjected to a trial by eourt-martial at the national capital; on charges pre- ferred by the British and American ministers. Of. eourse in conveying the prisoners to Tepic, Castro had merely obeyed the orders of his superiors, Alvarado and Vallejo; and the charges of ill treatment eould not be substantiated. The proceedings began before the end of 1840,53 and lasted until May 1841. It is understood that Micheltorena, later governor of Cali- fornia, conducted Castro's defenee; and the result was, that he was fully exonerated of blame, and permitted to return to California, where he arrived in Septem- ber, having made the trip chiefly by land.60 There seems to be no foundation for the later rumors that he narrowly eseaped convietion, or that he had to run away from Mexico in disguise.61 The funds fron which his expenses were paid were furnished by En-

justice and remuneration for the prisoners, and satisfaction for the national insult.' 'Doubtless the American and English governments will demand ample satisfaction for these unfortunate men.' Honolulu Polynesian, June 20, 1810. Farnham on May 24th was warmly thanked in writing by the prisoners at Tepic for his services. Id., Dec. 5, 1840; and in his Life in Cal., 414, concludes: Graham returned to California, a broken-spirited, ruined man. The others are dispersed elsewhere. Our government has never avenged their wrongs.' ' Fifteen months later the government of Mexico sent part of them hack to Monterey, several dying from fatigue and privations.' Niles' Rey., Ixviii. 211.

69 Aug. 22, 1840, Virmond to Vallejo, explaining that Castro was not al- lowed to leave the city. Vallejo, Doc., MS., ix. 229. Dec. 17th, Gen. Valen- cia, chief of staff, to Vallejo. Court-martial in progress. Record of Castro's services required. Id., ix. 359. Jan. 23, 1841, Virmond to Munras. Castro will come out all right. Is living unmolested at writer's house. Id., xxxiii. 184. June 12, 1841, news of C.'s arrival at Mex. has reached Sta B. Sta B., Arch., MS., 23.

60 April 5, 1841, Valencia announces Castro's acquittal to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc., MS., x. 97. May 12th, Castro's return ordered, and expenses to be paid. Id., x. 136. May 15th, Castillero says that the acquittal was an hon- orable one. Id., x. 138. Sept. 18th, Alvarado speaks of Castro's return. Id., x. 281. Oct. Ist, orders for payment of dues to Castro. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iv. 56.

61 Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 410-11, says that in consequence of Barron's per- secutions, Castro had to come hy hy-roads via Durango to Mazatlan. Rob- inson, Life in Cal., 188, remarks: 'It is said it would have gone hard with him if he had not managed to escape through the connivance of his govern- ment.'

A FRENCH MAN-OF-WAR.

rique Virmond, to be repaid in California hides and tallow.

1216694

The Guipuzcoana had sailed from Monterey in April, 1840, and for nearly fifty days all was quiet, with no tidings of the exiles and their guard. Then came news in an unexpected and even threatening form. On the 11th of June there anchored before the town the French sloop of war Danaide, whose com- mander, J. de Rosamel, had come to demand an ex- planation of the outrage lately committed upon his countrymen-perhaps to avenge it-and at any rate to protect such Frenchmen as were yet in danger. He had been about to sail from Mazatlan for Honolulu when by the arrival of a schooner from Santa Bárbara he heard a grossly exaggerated report of the foreign- ers' arrest and banishment, including the statement that two Frenchmen had been killed and others severely wounded. He was of course delighted to learn that the rumor was false, that not a single one of his compatriotes had even been sent away, and that one or two who had been arrested were released ap- parently for no better reason than that they were Frenchmen. There being no occasion for warlike or even diplomatic demonstrations, Rosamel and his men proceeded to enjoy themselves for twenty days, to the mutual satisfaction of themselves and the Monterey- ans, with whom they established, as earlier visitors of their nation had usually done, the most friendly and agreeable relations. On July 2d, the Danaïde sailed away. 62

62 June 19th, July 12th, com. of Monterey announces arrival and departure of Danaïde and St Louis. Each left two deserters, but the Frenchmen were captured and restored. Vallejo, Doc., MS., ix. 150, 174. July Ist, Rosamel to gov., explaining his motives in coming, and expressing bis pleasure that his countrymen had been so well treated. He coucludes as follows: 'C'est avec le plus vif regret, Monsieur le Gouverneur, que je suis forcé de vous quitter, mais croyez bien que partout ou me porterá la destinée je n'oublierai jamais la bonne reception que vous avez faite á la Danaïde, et les relations amicales qui se sont etablies entre nous pendant mon séjour sur votre rade.' Original letter in Id., xxxiii. 88. Robinson's story, Life in Cal., 181-3, fol- lowed by Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 146, that Alvarado, in his fear and perplexity,

ALVARADO'S RULE-THE GRAHAM AFFAIR.

Nor was the Danaïde the only vessel that came on this business. The U. S. man-of-war St Louis, Cap- tain French Forrest, was only two days behind the Frenchman, arriving June 13th, and sailing July 4th. Forrest in a letter to the governor demanded an ex- planation of the report that Americans had been at- tacked in their houses, wounded, robbed, imprisoned, and sent away in violation of existing treaties. The required explanation was given: namely, that certain foreigners had been sent away according to law, either for offences against the public peace, or for having en- tered the country illegally; that they had been so well treated that one of them wrote a letter of thanks; and that none had suffered spoliation, none but Graham having any property. If Forrest was not satisfied with'this explanation, he took no further steps in the matter, except to collect testimony from certain resi- dent Americans, who claimed to have suffered losses in consequence of their arrest. On his departure, during Alvarado's absence in the interior, he left Ethan Estabrook to act as consular agent, of whose experi- ence in California I know nothing, except that the governor refused to recognize his authority. He ob- tained a passport to travel, and probably left the country in 1841, after taking a few additional state- ments. 63

left the town on pretext of an Indian campaign, and remained absent until the vessels sailed, has, I suppose, not much foundation, though it is true that A. did leave town and was absent at the time of departure of both vessels. Mellus, Diary, MS., 5-6, says the Danaïde entered with open ports, ready to open fire; but cooled down on hearing how matters stood. Capt. Phelps of the Alert, Fore and Aft, 251-2, was at Monterey at the time. He says the Frenchman was 'much disappointed' at finding no excuse to fire on the town. He tells us the Frenchmen became great favorites with the ladics. Once they were so attentive to them in church that the padre ordered them to leave the building; but the ladies protested, and the padre had to yield. Phelps' accountalso, in S. José Patriot, Jan. 22, 1869. Mention of Rosamel's visit also, in Mofras, Explor., i. 304-6; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 318; iv. 131-7; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., v. 14-15.

63 In his report of Dec. 4, 1841, 27th cong. 2d sess., Sen. Doc. 1, p. 368, the sec. navy writes: 'In the midst of these outrages, Com. Forrest arrived upon the coast, and, by his prompt and spirited interposition, vindicated and secured the rights, not only of American citizens, but of British subjects. For these services he received, and appears to have well deserved, a formal expression of the thanks both of American and English residents.' June 14,

RETURN OF THE EXILES.

In September the Guipuzcoana returned with news from Tepic. Before that time, in July and August, disquieting rumors had come by other vessels, to the effect that the prisoners had all been released and Castro arrested as a revolucionario.64 In October, as we have seen, the troops of the guard came back on the Catalina; in May of the next year came official despatches from Mexico; in July the Bolina brought nineteen of the released prisoners; and finally, in Sep- tember José Castro made his appearance.

The returning exiles in July 1841 came provided with regular passports, and part of them had legalized claims against Mexico for the losses they had incurred, and the authorities were instructed, at least in the case of nine English subjects, to facilitate the obtain- ing of proofs as to the amount of those losses.65 The

1840, Capt. Ferrest to gov. Dept. St. Pap., MS., v. 12; June 19th, gov.'s re- ply. Id., v. 10-11. Dec. 12th, gev. to min. int. It seems that the St Louis sailed while Alvarado was temporarily absent, and left the agent without ob- serving any formalities. Dept. Rec., MS., xi. 73-4. July 11th, Estabreek te gov. Is aware of formalities necessary in appointing censuls, but these do not apply to a mere agent whose business is chicfly commercial. Capt. Forrest had a right to inquire into infringement of treaties, and to appoint an agent fer that purpose. Dept. St. Pap., MS., v. 16-18. His presence alse mentioned in Vallejo, Doc., MS., ix. 174. Mofras, Explor., i. 306, is the only authority that names Estabrock. Mellus, Diary, MS., 5-6, says that Forrest, from the declarations taken, set the damages at over $100,000, exclusive ef the claims of those who had been sent away! Harry Bee was one of the witnesses, Recoll., MS., 21-8, and the enly wender is the aggregate of less was not larger. In June 1841 Jacob Lecse testified that the lieutenant in command of the St Louis had announced in the presence of several persens his intention to seize the governor and carry him to Mexico. Nathan Spear could net remember any such statement, though it was said to have been made at his house. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xvii. 74-5. July 2d, Spence writes to Alvarado that Ferrest wishes to knew when he will return, in order to arrange his business speedily. No truth in the rumer that he intends harm to A. July 7th, A. replies that business detains him. Id., v. 12. The salutes to the two war- vessels, with the fiesta of Corpus Christi, had very nearly exhausted the sup- ply of powder at Monterey. Flores, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., ix. 153.

64 Dept. St. Pap., MS., v. 18-19; Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., ii. 94-6. Cham- berlain, Memoirs, MS., 5-14, speaks of getting letters from Bewles, which he showed to Larkin. Spence was angry when he heard the prisoners had been relcased, and declared it a lie.

65 The 9 were Carmichael, Andersen, O'Brien, Dove, Price, Morris, Chapel, Langleis, and Warner. Dept. Rec., MS., xii. 36. Dec. 14, 1840, the British min. to Mexican govt. sent to gov. of Cal. Dec. 31st, and received in July 1841. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., iv. 51-3; Larkin's Doc., MS., i. 116; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 23-6; Castro, Doc., MS., i. 55. This communication came probably on the same vessel as the claimants. The British minister explained that Carmichael's claim was the largest, $7,380, he having had a shep at

ALVARADO'S RULE-THE GRAHAM AFFAIR.

coming of a war-vessel to settle the matter was an- nounced; but what was done meanwhile in California I do not know, except that Alvarado informed the government that the English claimants had not been able to prove the alleged losses.66 At last in Novem- ber the English man-of-war Curaçoa, Captain Jones, arrived at Monterey, and a settlement was effected. Mofras states that the total amount of compensation allowed was $24,050; and I find no other definite record on the subject. If they received one half that sum the exile had proved a brilliant speculation for the Englishmen. Apparently there was no controversy, and Alvarado was not disposed to drive a close bar- gain in the interest of the national treasury.67 What- ever the terms agreed upon, it is not likely that any money was advanced by Jones at the time; and if any money was paid over by the English government to its subjects later, I have found no positive record of the fact.

The claims of Americans were still pending, and remained in that condition for a long time if not for- ever. In November 1841 the Yorktown had been at Monterey, and the commander, J. H. Aulick, had probably carried away some testimony on the subject.63 Of correspondence between Washington

Monterey at the time of his arrest, and being about to carry out a business matter of great importance; that the others were much less; and that it was supposed that a part of the property lost could be returned by the aid of the local authorities. At any rate, it was for the interest of Mexico to closely in- vestigate each claim; and the authorities were accordingly instructed to interpose no obstacles.

GG July 26, 1841, A. to min. of int. Dept. Rec., MS., xii. 33-6. July 22d, Flores to Vallejo. Two war-vessels expected. The affair seems settled with the British minister, but is still pending with the American. Vallejo, Doc., MS., x. 220.

67 Nov. 12, 1841, A. to min. of int. Reports that the Curacoa arrived on Nov. Sth, and that au estimate of the value of the lost time of the 9 men had been made. Dept. Rec., MS., xii. 36. According to Mofras, Explor., i. 308-9, Carmichael was allowed 84,500 for his shop, etc., others $2,000 for miscellaneous property lost, and each of 15 men $1, 170, or $78 per month for 15 months. I doubt the accuracy of this statement, especially on account of the number of men mentioned. Morris at first claimed £37,000. .

G8 Nov. 26, 1841, Aulick to Larkin. Graham and others ask too much when they ask him to wait. They must have their papers ready to-morrow. Larkin's Doc., MS., i. 190.

THE AMERICAN JONES.

and Mexico on the subject I find no trace; but it came up in California on the occasion of Commodore Jones' visit in November 1842. Jones wished to settle the elaims as his English namesake had done a year earlier; and a long correspondence ensued be- tween him and the Californian authorities, mainly with Jose Z. Fernandez, the juez at Monterey. It soon became apparent, however, that the second Jones would encounter obstacles unknown to the first. The correspondence was mainly devoted to a discussion of the manner in which the claims were to be verified. Each party sought to gain an advantage and throw the burden of proof upon the other. Jones, desiring to carry the claims in the strongest possible shape to Washington, wished to have the sworn statements of the claimants accepted and approved by the courts, except so far as they could be proved false by wit- nesses under a strict cross-examination. He wished to dispense with troublesome routine formalities of Mexi- can law. He charged that various alealdes had refused to take testimony offered, and complained that the American claims were not favored as the English had been, or were popularly said to have been. Judge Fernandez, to whom Alvarado left the matter almost entirely, had manifested a readiness to legalize the just claims of American citizens, and at the earlier interviews between him and Jones all went smoothly enough; but when the investigation really began, the judge insisted on following in his own court his own ideas, rather than those of the commodore, respecting methods of procedure. He proposed to investigate each case by an examination of all obtainable testi- mony. He declined to be used as a mere machine for certifying the accuracy of the Americans' estimates of their losses, and declared that he had no authority to enter into diplomatic discussions respecting the comparative status of English and American claims. Chard and Graham are the only claimants named, though others are alluded to; and when the case of

ALVARADO'S RULE-THE GRAHAM AFFAIR.

the former came up he was adjudged to be a natural- ized Mexican citizen, entitled to no damages from any nation but Mexico, and he was condemned to pay the costs of the suit! This was not encouraging; and Jones, after striving ineffectually to reform Califor- nian court proceedings in accordance with the inter- ests of his countrymen, determined to content himself with carrying away their sworn statements, unen- cumbered by troublesome comments from other sources. He doubtless understood that the claims, if investigated, would dwindle to such insignificant figures as to play no part in international complica- tions.63

Nothing more is heard of the American claims, ex- cept that in 1843-4 they had not been paid, nor in 1846.70 I find no proof that Graham and his compan- ions ever received a cent from the United States, though there has always been a prevalent tradition in

Gy One of the statements which I have cited as Graham et al., Petition to U. S. Govt, 1842, was signed by Graham, Chard, Majors, Brown, Hance, Barten, Wilson, Cooper, Tomlinson, and Naile-some of them not sent to S. Blas- on Nov. 9, 1842. It is a much more moderate presentment of the case than those made current by Farnham and others. The document was furnished by Rev. S. H. Willey, a gentleman who has done much good work in his- torical research, and was published in Sta Cruz Co. Hist., 9-10; Monterey Co. Ilist., 32-4. Nov. 13th to Dec. 31st, corresp. between Com. Jones, Gov. Al- varado, and Judge Fernandez. Chiefly originals, in Castro, Doc., MS., i. 66- 114; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiii. 301-2, 308. Two of the minor communica- tions are also given in Jones at Monterey, 91-2. Testimony of Graham and Chard that their sworn statement of losses had been refused by the alcalde of ' Branciforte. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiii. 299-300. Record of Chard's case. His claim was for 81,004. Monterey, Arch., MS., vi. 11. The evidence of his naturalization is not given. Mofras, Explor., i. 309-11, gives the claims of the Americans as $120,210; Graham, $109,000; Chard, $5,000; and 13 others for time, $1,170 cach (as for the Englishmen), or $15,210. He says, writing in 1844, that the cabinet at Washington allowed the claims to drag along un- paid in order to accumulate injuries at the hands of Mexico, for which some- thing more than pecuniary indemnity would one day be demanded. Wilkes, Narr., v. 180-2, complains of the negligence of his govt as implying a doubt of the legitimacy of the claims.

74 ' Mexico promised to pay a certain indemnity to each of these men, which she has never yet done, and one of them is now in this city [Mexico] in the extremest poverty,' wrote Waddy Thompson, Dec. 31, 1843. President's Mess. and Doc., 28th cong. Ist sess., Sen. Doc., 390, p. 11. April 20, 1844, Larkin to U. S. sec. of state, enclosing Graham's statement. Graham claimed $72,500 besides the value of the property he had lost, including pay for lost time at $1,500 per month! Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 5-6. In June, 1846, Lar- kin also writes on the subject, and maintains that these Cal. claims are the strongest that can be brought forward against Mexico. Id., ii. 64.

INDEMNITY FOR EXILE.

California, among both natives and foreigners, that Graham did get a large sum.71 I put no reliance in the tradition. Many, possibly all, of the twenty who returned received a sum of money at Tepic, $250 being the largest amount given to any one man. Nine of the Englishmen probably received a small additional sum, and there is a possibility that four or five Amer- icans in later years may have disposed of their claims at a low figure. If each of those adjudged to have been illegally exiled could have received $500 in com- pensation for his losses, it would have been a better use of his time than any one of the number was likely to have made in California.72

71 Members of Graham's family, and residents of Sta Cruz who knew him well, say that G. certainly received a large sum; but when pressed for definite statements of date and circumstances, they are silent. Willey, Centen. Sketch Sta Cruz, 19, also in Sta Cruz Co. Hist., says Graham got $36,000, and that Mr Meder was with him when it was paid. Mcadows, Graham Affair, MS., 31, tells us that 6 men went to N. Y. and recovered $12,000 each, giving half to their lawyers, so Bowles, who was one of them, said! Others at Sta Cruz sold their claims, for how much he does not know. Graham is said to have got $35,000 or $36,000. Gleeson, Hist. Cath. Church, ii. 152-3, thinks the exiles got $150,000. Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 68-9, puts it at $250,000. Others tell us that Graham lost most of his large property!

72 In a letter of June 15, 1346, to the U. S. sec. of state, Larkin promises a full history of the Graham affair, to be compiled from the documents in his office, the next summer; but I have found no such history. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 59. On Feb. 10, 1846, in a letter to Jas Gordon Bennett of the N. Y. Herald, Larkin briefly describes the affair, and says, 'I have read the Sta Fé history; it is nothing to the California affair.' Id., Doc., ii. 6. See also gencral accounts in Ferry, La Cal., 22-3; Soule's Annals of S. F'co, 83-4; S. F. Cal. Star, Feb. 26, 1847; Hartmann, Geog. Californien, i. 37-8.

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 IV, Part 5

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe Publication date: 1885 Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers Number of Pages: 820

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 820