[9] There is an interesting statement in Viana’s Respuestas, fol. 151–155, regarding the iron mine of Santa Ynes and its early history. One Francisco Salgado claimed to have discovered it, and tried to operate it for some time; but he finally abandoned the work, and it (or rather the right to work it) was sold, some years afterward, by the government to the highest bidder. Viana says of this mine: “It is called a mine, but more properly is a quarry of rocks containing iron, with which rocks the mountains of Santa Ynes abound; and in order to obtain them no vein is followed, nor is there need for tunnels, as there is in the mines.” Salgado sold considerable iron from Santa Ynes, including 2,000 picos of it to the royal storehouses at four pesos a pico, instead of the current rate of ten pesos; this low price was claimed by the royal fiscal as the right of the crown, in the term of Ezpeleta as governor. In 1765, Salgado was claiming from the government 36,000 pesos, to reimburse him for the losses he had met in operating Santa Ynes; but Viana sturdily opposed this, saying that the mine naturally belonged to the crown, and that Salgado had forfeited any rights which he might have had therein, and did not make any claims to the mine at the time when it was placed in the hands of Francisco Casañas and Juan Solano, as he should have done in order to render them valid at the present time; moreover, he had made various misrepresentations of the matter at different times, and ought to be punished for falsehood.
In fol. 158, 159, Viana states that (in 1765) Casañas is dead, and Solano pays to the royal treasury five hundred pesos a year. Viana is anxious to prevent the abandonment of the mines (which he fears in view of the losses and injuries caused by the late war), since they contain enough iron to supply all India, and ought to be operated for the benefit of the royal treasury, thus saving the great expense which it incurs in buying iron from China, and preventing the drain of so much money from the islands. He therefore proposes that some two hundred Chinese be placed at work in the mines to operate and develop them, and build the necessary furnaces and other appliances; this will also reduce the population of the Parian, and will cost nothing to the treasury save the rations for the Sangleys, who should be compelled to cultivate the lands near the mines and raise most of what is needed for their support and that of their families (for the married ones should be selected for this colony). They should be placed under a manager of skill and energy, with twenty-five or thirty soldiers at his disposal. From this enterprise, “numberless advantages would ensue for the king and for the public. The consumption of iron in the islands amounts to from 80,000 to 100,000 pesos’ worth annually; and even the most ordinary sort, that from China, costs seven to eight pesos a pico for bars, and twelve to thirteen when wrought into nails, balls, etc.” By the above plan the cost of producing the iron would be reduced to about three pesos a pico. All the Sangley ironworkers should therefore be seized, and transported to the mines. [↑]
[10] “In the eastern part of the Philippines, cock-fights must have been unknown in Pigafetta’s time; he saw the first gamecocks in Paláuan.” (See Pigafetta’s mention of these fights, in VOL. XXXIII, p. 211.) “In the ‘Ordinances of good government’ of Hurtado Corcuera, in the middle of the seventeenth century, gamecocks were not mentioned. In 1779 they first added to the revenue from taxation; and in 1781 the government farmed the right to collect entrance-money in the cockpits (galleras, from gallo, “cock”), for $14,798 a year. In 1863 the revenue from these places made an item in the budget of $106,000.” A special ordinance regarding cock-fights was dated at Madrid, March 21, 1861; among its provisions is permission for this sport to be held on Sundays and feast-days, from the conclusion of high mass until sunset. “The craving to gain money without work they can with great difficulty withstand, and many are, through the passion for gambling, drawn into borrowing money at usury, embezzlement, and theft, and even highway robbery; the bands of robbers on both sea and land consist, for the greater part, of ruined gamesters.” (Jagor, Reisen, p. 22.) [↑]
[11] Spanish, vecinos, which is probably a clerical error for tiempos, as indicated by the context. The implication in “forty-eight” is, apparently, that the cock-fight would be a regular holiday amusement. [↑]
[12] This recommendation by Viana was carried out later by Governor Basco (see pp. 53–55. ante). [↑]
[13] In some of Viana’s official opinions (Respuestas, fol. 114v–117, 128–132), he gives advice regarding the farming-out of the wine monopoly. He protests (March 27, 1765) against the action of the board in charge of this matter, who proposed to give this privilege to Andres del Barrio (the only bidder at the auction), for 16,000 pesos a year for five years. He states that it had at the previous sale brought 26,000 pesos, when the amount consumed was the same as at present; and the farmer’s returns from this monopoly ought to be even more now, since the regular soldiery now number 2,000, against less than 1,500 at the last sale, and some years hardly 1,000, while the net profit of this trade, if it be carried on with energy and business ability, ought to average over 30,000 pesos a year. Viana also protests against granting the monopoly on buyo to Pedro Tagle (also the only bidder) for 10,000 pesos, when the board had decided to offer it for 12,000 in order to dispose of it more easily, while the royal officials had valued it at 14,000. The board made reply to these objections, with arguments which Viana characterizes as weak, and proceeds to demolish with his usual energy. He complains that they acted without even notifying him to attend their proceedings, when they ought to be aware that he, as fiscal, is a member of the board. They have cited the prices first paid for the wine monopoly (10,000 and 15,000 pesos respectively; cf. VOL. XLVII, pp. 118, 119), without considering that those were for the term of three years only, while the present term is five years; and the prices paid before the English war were, at the last sale, 26,000 pesos, and at each of the two preceding ones 20,500. He states that the Spaniards of the city are poor, and consume little wine from the monopoly shops; but this is not the case with the soldiers, nor with the natives, who now are receiving higher wages than before the war, and are comparatively rich through it since they are selling all kinds of supplies at higher prices than ever before. Viana says that Francisco Salgado, the last holder of this monopoly, began it without any means of his own (having lost all he had in working an iron mine); but at the end of the five years he had gained from the monopoly 200,000 pesos. He estimates that the expenses of administering the business are 40,000 pesos annually, and adding to this 26,000 for the government dues, and 40,000 for the contractor’s gains, the total amount of the business is 106,000 pesos a year. If the Acapulco galleon and its successful voyages could be depended upon more certainly, the Spaniards would have more money to spend, and the wine monopoly would be even more profitable. Viana makes an interesting comparison between the administration of monopolies in the islands and that in Spain, where the circumstances are so different that, as he says, the laws of Castilla on this point are “absolutely impracticable” in the Philippines; moreover, in Spain the monopoly must be considered in connection with the impost of alcabala, “which is not collected on anything in these islands.” He urges that the board at least restrict the term of the monopoly of wine to four years, if they sell it at the rate of 16,000 pesos; and that for six years the rate be made 20,000. Also, that if the buyo monopoly be sold for 10,000 the term be made four years, and the rate be 9,000 [sic] for six years. If they will not do this, these monopolies should be administered by the government directly, and not farmed out at all. (From an entry dated May 10 (fol. 141v), it appears that the wine monopoly was purchased by Theodora Fagoaga.)
Apropos of his statement regarding the alcabala, cf. what he says on fol. 134, regarding a request made by the alcalde-mayor appointed for the province of Pangasinan, who asked a reduction of alcabala and bonds [fianzas] (presumably required for his faithful administration of that office). Viana advises against such reduction, saying of the alcabala, “There is the same reason for paying the same amount as in the past, because the commerce is the same; and the said impost is not so much for alcabala as for the privilege of trading allowed to the alcaldes-mayor, relieving them from the oath which they formerly took.” [↑]
[14] Probably the worst of these abuses were checked by the formation of a naval bureau by the decree of 1800 (see “Events in Filipinas,” ante, last paragraph). [↑]