[478] Although all other historians agree that the judgment of the cihuacoatl was final, the interpreter of Mendoza's collection states that an appeal lay from the judges (he does not state which) to the king. Explicacion de la Coleccion de Mendoza, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. v., p. 109. Prescott, Mex., vol. i., p. 29, attributes this to the changes made during Montezuma's reign, the period which the Mendoza paintings represent, and Leon Carbajal, Discurso, p. 98, totally denies the truth of the statement.
[479] 'Dalle sentenze da lui pronunziate o nel civile, o nel criminale, non si poteva appellare ad un altro tribunale,' &c. Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. ii., p. 127.
[480] Mex., vol. i., p. 29.
[481] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., p. 580.
[482] Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 593.
[483] Discurso, p. 97.
[484] 'Oìa de causas, que se debolvian, y remitian à èl, por apelacion; y estas eran solas las criminales, porque de las civiles no se apelaba de sus Justicias ordinarias.' Monarq. Ind., tom. ii., p. 352. It is possible that Señor Carbajal may have read only a subsequent passage in the same chapter, where Torquemada, speaking of the tribunal of the tlacatecatl, says: 'De este se apelaba, para el Tribunal, y Audiencia del Cihuacohuatl, que era Juez Supremo, despues del Rei.' From what has gone before, it is, however, evident that the author here refers only to the criminal cases that were appealed from the court of the tlacatecatl.
[485] Hist. Apologética, MS., cap. ccxii.
[486] Mex., vol. i., p. 29. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. ii., pp. 127-8, also affirms, indirectly, that cases were sometimes laid in the first instance before the supreme judge, inasmuch as he first says that the cihuacoatl took cognizance of both civil and criminal cases, and afterwards, when speaking of the court of the tlacatecatl, he writes: 'Se la causa era puramente civile, non v'era appellazione.' The same applies to Brasseur de Bourbourg. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., p. 580.
[487] Herein lies the only difference between Las Casas and Torquemada on the subject of the Cihuacoatl. The former writes: 'Qualquiera que este oficio para si usurpara, ó lo concediera á otro, avia de morir por ello, y sus padres y deudos eran desnaturados del pueblo donde acaeciese hasta lo quarta generación. Allende que todos los bienes avian de ser confiscados, y aplicados para la republica.' Hist. Apologética, MS., cap. ccxii. Torquemada says: 'era tan autoriçado este oficio, que el que lo vsurpara para si, ò lo comunicàra à otro en alguna parte del Reino, muriera por ello, y sus Hijos, y Muger fueran vendidos, por perpetuos esclavos, y confiscados sus bienes por Lei, que para esto havia.' Monarq. Ind., tom. ii., p. 352. Notwithstanding all other historians distinctly affirm that the cihuacoatl was, in the exercise of his functions perfectly independent of the king, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., p. 580, makes the following extraordinary statement: 'Il jugeait en dernier ressort et donnait des ordres en lieu et place du souverain, chaque fois que celui-ci ne le faisait pas directement et par lui-même.' This must be from one of the original manuscripts in the possession of M. l'Abbé.