[3] For the “Demonstration” here cited, see VOL. XLVIII, in which it is the final document. In the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago, is a MS. book containing copies of letters by Viana written in 1767; the first of these (dated January 5) is addressed to the Marqués de Esquilace, and mentions the despatch to him and to the king, in the previous year, of copies both of the “Demonstration” and of the present statement of “Financial affairs of the islands.” He also relates how he has been actuated in his official duties by his zeal for the royal service, and has always upheld the rights of the crown; and in consequence he has been the mark for the hatred and enmity of all those who live by plundering the royal treasury, and who desire a fiscal who will allow them to do so without any opposition. The above-mentioned documents have, he says, “raised a furious tempest, the anger of those who fear the loss of their own profits, on which loss depends the rightful increase of his Majesty’s interests, and the saving of iniquitous expenditures.” Of the religious orders in the islands, he says: “They have great power, and much wealth which is acquired through what they unjustly collect from the royal exchequer and the Indians. No one dares to incur the hostility of the religious, for all fear the direful results of their power; and under pretext of a false piety, painted with the bright colors of the true, they have been wont to obtain whatever they have claimed. For this reason they have, ever since the conquest of the islands, burdened the royal exchequer with the increasing and numerous expenses occasioned in behalf of the said religious orders, instead of securing economies for it.” He claims “the glory of being the first one who, by dint of close application, has discovered the ‘philosopher’s stone’ for the enrichment of these islands and the royal exchequer.”
Viana also relates in this letter the enmity of Francisco Salgado against him, because he has, by insisting on the rights of the crown, secured sentences against Salgado in two lawsuits—one denying his claim for 36,000 pesos in the iron-mine contract, and the other compelling him to pay into the royal treasury the sum of 28,000 pesos, due from him as farmer of the wine monopoly—notwithstanding this man’s wealth and his persistent efforts to corrupt the royal officials. “This is a very unusual thing in Manila, where rich persons, like Salgado, know the method of making their iniquitous dealings secure, by dint of presents and bribes, which are frequent. It is by this means that the said Salgado succeeded in gaining the good will of the present governor of these islands [i.e., Raón], by offering him 20,000 pesos in cash (as is well known and notorious) in order that the wine monopoly might be awarded to him at its sale, for the sum of 24,000 pesos in each year. I opposed this, proving by documents that the said monopoly produced more than 54,000 pesos, after deducting all expenses; and that the poverty and the urgent necessities of the royal treasury protested against the sacrifice of the 30,000 pesos of which the exchequer would be deprived every year.” He says that the governor tried to secure the award at that low rate to Salgado; but Viana appealed to the royal Audiencia, in which the case was pending when he wrote, and Raón and Salgado were both afraid of losing the great profits which otherwise they would have gained. He implores the minister “to exert his influence to check the rapidity with which these islands are hastening to their utter ruin.” Further reports and letters by Viana in regard to the Salgado affair are found in this book (Cartas y consultas), at fol. 6–11, 15–23, 30–37; the wine monopoly was finally sold for 40,000 pesos a year, thanks to Viana’s persistent efforts. [↑]
[4] Spanish, baylio, meaning a knight commander of the Order of Malta—i.e., the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. The following word is spelled “Frey” because it denotes a member of a military order. (Velázquez.) [↑]
[5] Expediente: this word has numerous meanings in Spanish, some of which are difficult to define in English. In this case it apparently means “the collection of all the papers belonging to a subject or business;” it may also denote “a summary or abstract, a legal process, official acts, or judicial inquiry.” Another meaning is, “any subject, claim, importunity, or analogous matter submitted to investigation, and depending upon a decision or warrant.” (Dominguez.)
The law here referred to (Felipe IV, June 18, 1658) provides that the religious who are charged with the instruction of the Indians shall receive “a stipend of 50,000 maravedis in each year for each doctrina of 400 tribute-payers, which rule shall be inviolably observed.” [↑]
[6] Spanish, vajo de Campana, literally, “under the bell,” i.e. of the church. In an opinion rendered on April 17, 1765 (Respuestas, fol. 121, 122), Viana recommends that the Audiencia issue strict orders to die corregidor of Tondo to proceed to the reduction of the Indians dispersed through his province into villages—providing them with suitable dwelling-places from the lands belonging to the respective villages, or from the vacant crown lands. He enumerates the advantages (the religious ones being most important of all) which will follow to the Indians as well as to the government from this change; and asks that the religious ministers be charged not to interfere with the secular authorities in carrying out this plan, but rather use their influence to persuade the Indians to submit to it quietly. This plan is but the beginning of his scheme to bring about, as fast as it can be secured, the reduction of all the natives in all the provinces to obedience to Spanish dominion.
On fol. 132v, 133 are opinions regarding applications which were made soon afterward by certain persons or communities to be exempted from the enforced reduction to village life; Viana refuses to entertain these, insisting that all the natives must be brought “under the church bell,” in order that they may be instructed in religion, that their souls may be saved. (Cf. fol. 146, 147, 156, 162, 185.)
He also urged (fol. 139), on May 9, 1765, that all unsettled Indians in the province of Cagayan should be returned to their respective villages. [↑]
[7] See the tariff established by Archbishop Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 58–64.) [↑]
[8] Viana had said, in an official opinion rendered on January 14, 1765: “Notwithstanding these arguments [among which Viana mentions the frauds committed in the sale of these boletas], the royal junta of the exchequer would not have decided upon the application of the galleon’s lading to the benefit of the royal treasury if the necessity had not been most urgent, and this measure indispensable; and the distribution would have continued, in accordance with the favor bestowed by our kings and sovereigns to the commerce here—which has no right of justice to the boletas, nor is his Majesty under obligation to distribute them, since they have been assigned [to the citizens] by his royal clemency as a mere favor and benefit, and as alms. No one ought to be surprised that this favor, this benefit, and this alms should be suspended when there are no funds, and no means for paying it, and when it is applied in order to meet the unavoidable expenditures of the royal treasury, and to the payments which in justice must be made to the troops and other people employed in the royal service and the defense of these dominions. For it would not be just that for the sake of distributing the boletas, to which there is no obligation in justice, there should be failure in paying the claims which by every rule of law are due, and to meet the expenses which are unavoidable for the conservation of these islands.” (Respuestas, fol. 73.) It is evident from this that the above measure was put into force temporarily, at least, in 1764, as a necessary expedient in the distressed condition of the islands after the English evacuation; and that Viana now recommends it as a permanent regulation. [↑]