After the inauguration of the superintendency of real hacienda at Manila in 1787, the incumbent of that office was made largely responsible for the Chinese. This was probably so arranged because the care and administration of the Chinese at that time involved questions of finance rather than of war and defense. It will be remembered, too, that, during much of the time, the office of superintendent was combined with that of governor. A number of disputes arose between the governor and the intendant after the latter office was created in 1785,[59] but after the union of the governorship with the superintendency, no further occasion of dispute arose. During the greater part of the nineteenth century, the peculiar nature of the office of intendant gave to the latter official the duty of collecting the licenses of the Chinese, subject to the superintendent.
There yet remains something to be said regarding the administration of justice among the Chinese, and we must note certain typical disputes and disagreements which arose in that connection. That the audiencia had authority to try cases in second instance involving the Chinese has already been stated. Likewise the oidores were liable to special delegation to try cases of an extraordinary character which arose among the Chinese, as, for example in 1786, when Oidor Bolívar y Meña was designated to try in first instance charges which had been made against Chinese bakers in the Parián, who were said to have put a quantity of powdered glass in bread which they had made for the Spaniards. This case was regarded as one of more than ordinary significance, as involving treason and insurrection, and it was accordingly tried by an oidor who had been especially delegated for the purpose by the governor.[60]
The question of Chinese jurisdiction is further illustrated by a dispute which arose in the colony between the audiencia and the governor, and which was carried to the king by the latter functionary on June 30, 1793. Oidor Moreno had ordered the arrest of the Chinese cabecilla of the Parián on a criminal charge.[61] The detention of the Chinaman was conceded to be justifiable, but Governor Marquina alleged that Moreno had entirely disregarded the cédula of October 11, 1784, which had ordered that in case of the arrest of any royal official, notification should be served to the governor in sufficient time for him to take the proper precautions for the safeguarding of any of His Majesty’s property which might be in the care or under the protection of the official in question. He said that this particular arrest was typical of the petty interference of the oidores and illustrative of the slight pretexts upon which they frequently upset the whole system of government and caused untold annoyances. On account of the many difficulties in the collection of the tribute which had presented themselves as a consequence of the arrest of this particular Chinese official, and because the latter was especially efficient, the governor had asked the audiencia to permit the cabecilla to be excused on condition that he should bind himself to return to the custody of the audiencia after he had collected the taxes. This the tribunal had refused. The government, as a consequence, had been put to much inconvenience in finding a substitute, and the sum collected had been considerably less than was usually obtained, owing to the lack of experience of the new collector. After the cabecilla had been in prison over four months, he was brought to trial, and nothing being proved against him, he was freed. The audiencia, however, had won its point, and had manifested its right to the last word in judicial affairs relating to the Chinese.
The difference between the appellate jurisdiction of the audiencia in contentious cases involving Chinese and in administrative matters which it did not have is illustrated by a case which came up in 1794 and lasted through twelve years of litigation. In the year aforementioned, the ayuntamiento of Manila brought suit before an alcalde ordinario of the city against a Chinese, Augustín Chagisco, on a charge of the failure of the latter properly to fulfill a contract which he had made to supply the city with meat. The alcalde ordinario, before whom suit had been brought in first instance, cancelled the contract, and the Chinese appealed to the audiencia. The tribunal, after due consideration of the case, restored Chagisco to his status as provider of meats (abastecedor de carne) for the city. Instead of appealing the case as one of law, the ayuntamiento wrote to the king on January 19, 1796, alleging that the audiencia had interfered in behalf of a Chinese whose services the ayuntamiento had discontinued as provider of meats, over which matter the audiencia had no jurisdiction. The king immediately gave expression of his approval of the stand of the ayuntamiento, being of the impression that the question at stake was one of appointment only.[62] At the same time the king demanded a full explanation from the oidores as to why they had interfered in this matter which was so far removed from their jurisdiction. The audiencia, in reply, sent all the records and testimonios of the suit to the Council, and that tribunal called upon the ayuntamiento in due time to explain why it had misrepresented the case. After a long period of acrimonious correspondence between the Manila authorities, the case was concluded on February 19, 1806, by a reversal of the earlier decision, and His Majesty sent a letter of congratulation and approval to the audiencia in appreciation of its stand in the matter.[63] The king informed the tribunal that it had been entirely regular in its proceedings, having reversed the decision of the alcalde ordinario in a legal suit which had been appealed by the Chinese to the audiencia in protest against the adverse decision of the lower court.
Without carrying this discussion further, it is clear that the audiencia had general appellate jurisdiction in cases involving the Chinese. These cases, when they originated in the Parián, were tried in first instance by special judges for the Chinese, but suits brought against a Chinese who lived outside, or suits of a semi-public nature, as the one just noted, might be tried in first instance by the ordinary judges. It has also been noted that oidores were sometimes delegated to try cases in first instance involving treason or insurrection of Chinese. In regard to matters of government, it may be said that the governor was held responsible, but even in these the oidores participated in an advisory capacity.
[1] Acuña to Felipe III, July 15, 1604, Blair and Robertson, XIII, 235. Acuña stated that the soldiers and military officials were “discontented and grieved at the ill-treatment which the said auditors accord them; and at seeing that they are hindered by them, an auditor commanding at his will the arrest of a captain, official, or soldier, without cause or reason, and interfering in all the details of service—even going so far as to inspect their quarters, and send them to the public prison, for very trivial affairs, against all military precedents.” The governor said that when affairs went on in a peaceful and orderly way, it was because the oidores were not interfering with them. He stated that it was the opinion of all right-thinking men that soldiers were of more use in the colony than judges (ibid., 237).
[2] The terms of these governors were as follows: Fajardo, 1618–1624; Corcuera, 1635–1644; Vargas, 1678–1684; Arandía, 1754–1759; Anda, 1762–1764, 1770–1776.
[3] Rios Coronel to the King, June 27, 1597, A. I., 67–6–19; see also Bourne, “Historical introduction,” in Blair and Robertson, I, 53, note.
[4] These arguments are noted in detail in Chapter II of this volume.