OCR Text |
Show 486 maa? onic saa ' ‘ j m 5 * i eb "| riN j *%oe tee ‘ q f : g ig 4 ' # { 4 ‘Lok reas. Gr a tes ete ; FACTS Hl A OF NEW MEXICAN SPANISH HISTORY Varo, and he, of course, obeying the instructions of his superior in Mexico. The bishop also appointed Don Santiago Roybal as juez eclesiastico, whose authority was only partially recognized. Crespo began legal proceedings against the Franciscan authorities in Mexico, and besides demanding recognition of his episcopal rights, he made serious charges against the New Mexican friars, alleging that they did not properly administer the sacraments; that they did not learn the native language; that the neophytes rather than confess through an interpreter, who might reveal their secrets, did not confess at all, except in articulo mortis; that of 30 padres provided for, only 24 were serving; that the failure to reduce the Moquis was their fault; that some of them neglected their duties, and others by their conduct caused scandal; and that tithes were not properly collected or expended. ‘‘These charges, especially those connected with ignorance of the native language, were supported by the formal testimony of twentyfour prominent officials and residents, taken by the governor at Santa Fé in June, 1731. Details of the suit are too bulky and complicated for notice here. There was.a royal order of 1729 favorable to the bishop, and another of 1731 to some extent favoring the position of the Franciscans; but the decision in 1733 was in substance that, pending a final decision on the great principles involved, the bishop had, and might exercise, jurisdiction in New Mexico; and, as we Shall see, he did make ‘ ‘ LEADING a visita in 1737. In Spain the case came up on appeal in 1736, and a main feature of the friars’ plea was the claim that the testimony against them was false, having been given by bad men, moved by prejudice against the padres, who had -?_ opposed their sinful customs. To prove this, they produced the evidence, taken by the vice-custodio, Padre José Antonio Guerrero, , aa i ¥ } ¥ i : in July, 1731, of another set of officials and citizens, to the effect that the missionaries had performed every duty in the most exemplary and zealous manner, though it was not pretended that they knew the native dialects. Counter-charges were also made that the governor and his officials abused the Indians, forcing them to work without ;: ' i 7 : | % } ; ; r ‘ep Q pay. The record from which I take this information was printed in 1738, when no permanent decision had been reached.’? 4°2 425 Bancroft, H. H., History of Arizona and New Mezxico, pp. 240-241. Ina note to the above brief resume of this controversy, citing Crespo, Memorial ajustado que de orden del consejo supremo de Indias se ha hecho del pleyto, que sigue el Illmo. Sor. Don Benito Crespo, obispo que fue de Durango, y lo cons tinua el Illmo. Sor. Don Martin de Elizacoechea, su sucesor en dicho obispando. Con la religion de N. P. S. Francisco, de la Regular Observencia, y su procurador general de las Indias. Sobre visitar, y exercer los actos de la jurisdicion diocesana en la custodia del Nuevo Mexico en la Nueva Espaiia, poner vicarto foraneo, y otras cosas, Madrid, 1738, fol. 64 i, says: ‘‘The padres accused of neglect, 50 far as named, were PP. Ant. Gabaldon of Nambé, Juan de la Cruz of 8. Juan, Carlos Delgado of Isleta, Manuel Sopefia of Sta Clara, José Yrigoye? RULE, 1700 TO 1822 437 The rule of Governor Bustamante closed in the year 1731. He was tried on charges of illegal trade, found guilty, and forced to pay the costs of his trial. All in all, Governor Bustamante’s administration was very successful. Gervasio Cruzat y Géngora succeeded Bustamante in the governorship of the province. He held the office continuously for the full term of five years. Very little, other RULE OF GOVERNOR GERVASIO than the establishment of a mission CRUZAT Y GONGORA among the Jicarilla Apaches, is of record concerning the events of this period.*°° During g the time that Cruzat occupied the a gubernatorial p office he visited all parts of the province. When the bishop of Durango made his visita, he, also, was at Inscription Rock, as appears from a memorial cut in the stone, as follows: ‘‘On the 28th day of September, of the year 1737, arrived at this place the Illustrious Don Martin Elizacochea, bishop of Durango; and on the 29th left for Zuii.’? This bishop of which dignitaries the latter before the his visit to El Morro Ignacio de Arrasain, date. General Juan was the successor to Bishop Crespo, both prosecuted the case against the Franciscans, Council of the Indies in Spain. At the time of he was accompanied by the bachelor Don Juan whose name appears on the rock on the same Paez Hurtado, the year previous, had been at of S. Ildefonso, Domingo Araos of Sta Ana, Ant. Miranda of Cia, Pedro Montano of Jemez, Juan Mirabal of Taos, and Juan Ant. Hereiza of Picuriés. Some of the witnesses against the padres were Capt. Juan Gonzales, ale. Mayor of Alburquerque; Diego de Torres, lieut.-ale. m. of Sta Clara; Juan Paez Hurtado; Ramon Garcia, ale. m. of Bernalillo; and Miguel Vega, ale. m. of Taos. Withesses in favor of the padres included Capt. Nufiez de Haro, Capt. Ant. de Uribarri, Capt. Sebastian Martin, Capt. Alonso Rael de Aguilar, Andrés Montoya, ale. m. of 8, Felipe, Capt. Nicolas Ortiz Nifio, and some of the opposing witnesses on certain points. P. Juan Mig. Menchero was in N. Mex. as visitador, and took some part in this affair. The bishop’s visits, both in ’25 and 730, are said to have produced copious rains, and thus greatly benefited the province. marriage of Manuel Armijo and Maria Francisca tried to prevent, figured largely in the testimony.’’ 93 This mission was near Las Trampas, Villasefior, Teatro, ii, 420. Vaca, which the Jues The ecles. about ten miles from Taos. Bancroft, H. H., History of Arizona and New Mexico, p. 242, note, says: ‘There were 130 Ind. at this mission in ’34, but few or none were left in 748. In 33 an Ind. greatly excited the wrath of P. Montaiio at Alburquerque by Presenting himself during service without a cloak and with braided hair, being Sustained in the ensuing quarrel by his grandfather. The padre complained through the ther custodio, Ant. Guerrero, to the governor and declared that € grandfa shouldP. beJosé shut up in a dungeon with shackles for his impious conduct.— Arch. Sta. Fé., Ms.’’ |