The most important and profitable commissions were awarded to the senior magistrate of the audiencia. He was charged permanently with the duty of seeing that all the decrees, fines, and decisions of the Council of the Indies were executed, collections being made in accordance with the instructions of that body. These included fines imposed in residencia and other penalties exacted on different occasions by the audiencia, or by the Council of the Indies. Among the latter were confiscations of property and fines for smuggling, for the illegal exportation of silver, and for the evasion of the king's fifth, [296] the alcabala and the almojarifazgo. The senior magistrate was authorized to retain as compensation three per cent of the amount collected, and he was ordered to give account to the audiencia of collections made by him in accordance with the law. [297]

Another magistrate was asesor of the Santa Cruzada, and it was his duty to give legal advice and to act as special attorney for that department of ecclesiastical activity. [298] The president, fiscal, and the senior oidor concurred in the acuerdos which treated of matters pertaining to real hacienda. [299] This was known as the junta ordinaria. A tribunal of appeals above the junta ordinaria was created later, and in its activities, also, the magistrates of the audiencia partic.i.p.ated. [300]

The audiencia also heard judicially certain cases of appeal involving the royal treasury, but magistrates who had partic.i.p.ated in the junta mentioned above were not allowed to hear again the cases in which their previous vote had been given. Each oidor served in turn for the period of six months on the board of auctions. [301] Magistrates were appointed by the governor, yearly, in turn, to serve as inspectors of the government. In this capacity they were expected to examine and report on the administration of justice and on the work of the audiencia, the royal treasury and the officials connected therewith, visitors, provincial officials and those of the city of Manila. The inspecting magistrate was authorized to examine the records of these officials and to use any other legitimate means in performance of his special duties. [302]

An oidor was designated by the president to make periodical inspections in the provinces. This official had to attend to a variety of matters while on visits of inspection. He was required to make a census of the towns, and inquire into the prosperity of the inhabitants; to audit the accounts of the town officials, and to see whether the provincial governor or magistrate had been faithful in the execution of his duties. He was supposed to visit the encomiendas and note the treatment of the Indians thereon, to find out whether the natives were properly and sufficiently instructed, or whether they were permitted to remain in idolatry and idleness. He inspected the churches and monasteries, seeing that they contained the requisite number of religious and no more, and noting whether the natives under the charge of the ecclesiastics were well treated. In the same way he inspected the curacies of the towns. The visiting oidor was especially required to give careful attention to the corregidores and alcaldes mayores, inspecting their judicial and administrative activities and holding them responsible for any irregularities, especially with regard to the treatment of the Indians. The visitor was required to inspect inns and taverns, to ascertain whether they observed the regular tariffs, and whether the drugs sold in the provinces were of good quality. He also inspected highways and bridges. If the visitor found anything wrong he was authorized to take immediate steps, on his own responsibility, to remedy the defects, reporting any action taken to the audiencia without delay. As seen in the last chapter, the immediate consequence of the visit was frequently the residencia of the official inspected. The visitor was provided with sufficient funds to defray his expenses, so that he would not be a burden on the encomenderos or Indians. The president of the audiencia was forbidden to order visits to the same province more frequently than once every three years, unless, after an investigation, such action was declared necessary by vote of the acuerdo. [303]

The audiencia exercised supervision over certain matters of church finance. These included t.i.thes, the funds of temporalities, and of certain charitable societies, and jurisdiction over the adjustment of estates and properties left by deceased prelates. In connection with the latter was the duty of auditing the accounts of benefices which were subject to the royal patronage whenever a transfer of occupants was made. These matters, though miscellaneous in their character, and accordingly pertinent here, may be reserved for a subsequent chapter which will be dedicated to a discussion of the relations of the audiencia and the Church.

An oidor in the Philippines served as judge of medias anatas. [304]

These taxes were levied upon the salaries of all officials of royal appointment, except ecclesiastics, these exactions varying in amount from one-half the first year's income to one-tenth of the gross salary of each official. The cedula of June 2, 1632, [305]

ordered the judge-commissioner of medias anatas to surrender the money which he had collected to the treasury officials who in turn were to transmit it to Spain. [306] More definite information as to the nature of the duties of the judge-commissioner of these funds may be gathered from the cedula of December 14, 1776, by which Oidor Felix Diaz Quejada y Obrero was appointed as commissioner of medias anatas in the Philippines. This magistrate was authorized to retain four per cent of all that he collected. This percentage, the cedula stated, was the same as was paid to the commissioner of medias anatas of New Spain. The cedula ordered Quejada to collect this tax from all royal appointees, but not from governors of towns or Indian caciques who were elected yearly, and who, of course, were not royal appointees. Appeals from judgments of the commissioner of medias anatas were to be entertained in the Council of the Indies only, and not in the audiencia. [307]

It has been pointed out already in this chapter that the effect of the reforms of the intendancy was to limit the jurisdiction of the oidores over special commissions. This is especially true of those relating to finance. An ill.u.s.tration of this is shown in the disputes which occurred between the oidores and the governor, over the conservatorships of betel, [308] wine, tobacco, playing-cards, and c.o.c.kpits. When these sources of income developed in the latter part of the seventeenth century, their supervision, as usual, had been conferred on oidores with t.i.tle of asesores or jueces-conservadores (judge conservators). [309] This was done in disregard of the laws of the Indies, wherein was expressed the desirability of conferring these a.s.sessorships, if possible, on properly qualified officials, other than oidores. The magistrate holding a commission was to attend to the legal duties and adjudicate all suits in connection therewith. The latter regulation was made in order that when the cases were brought to trial the magistrate might not be incapacitated by having rendered decisions in them ahead. The law continued in the following strain:

when a case so urgent and extraordinary offers itself that an oidor must be appointed, warning is hereby given that ... the same magistrate who tried the case originally may not be judge. [310]

This law conceded that oidores might serve when other magistrates were not available.

Governor Marquina, superintendente subdelegado de real hacienda from 1789 to 1793, refused to permit oidores to serve as asesores of the monopolies of betel, wine, and tobacco. These magistrates claimed, however, that they were ent.i.tled to the appointments, since they had occupied these positions before July 26, 1784, the date of the creation of the intendancy in the Philippines. They conceded that they had been relieved of jurisdiction over these rents on that date, and that the authority formerly exercised by them had been a.s.sumed by the intendant. [311] By the cedula of November 23, 1787, however, the intendancy had been abolished and the government restored to "the state and condition which had previously existed." [312] This would mean that the oidores should again hold these asesorias, and on the basis of this reasoning they demanded that the governor should return them.

The oidores did not tamely submit to a deprivation of their posts as asesores on the occasion of the establishment of the intendancy. They complained to the king, alleging that these appointments belonged to them by their own right. The king inquired of Governor Basco y Vargas why the oidores had not been designated for these duties. The governor replied that the supervision of the rents had been a.s.sumed by the intendant, but that their direction belonged at that time to the governor and superintendent, by virtue of the cedula of November 23, 1787. [313] He stated that the oidores had no right of their own to these asesorias, since the faculty of appointing asesores had been conferred on the governor (or viceroy) by the laws of the Indies, [314] and in times past governors had appointed lawyers who were not oidores. There was therefore no obligation on the part of the governor to give these places to oidores; indeed, the laws of the Indies had emphasized the undesirability of doing so. [315]

Basco y Vargas, in pursuance of this conception of his rights and duties, combined all of these asesorias under the direction of one office, placing them under the orders of his own asesor, leaving oidores in charge of each minor asesoria, except that of tobacco, which was placed under the immediate direction of the governor's asesor. The king approved this action, giving the new official a new t.i.tle, that of asesor de todo lo directivo y lo economico de la superintendencia subdelegada de la real hacienda de Filipinas. [316]

The local authority appointed Magistrate Castillo y Negrete to this new position at once, but the king, on the ground that the law [317]

forbade an oidor to hold such an office, disapproved of the appointment and gave the place to Rufino de Rivera, who had formerly been auditor de guerra and asesor de gobierno.

As soon as Governor Marquina a.s.sumed office, he relieved the magistrates of the audiencia of all share in the administration of these monopolies, combining all these branches of real hacienda under the asesor above mentioned. On August 3, 1791, the audiencia protested against the acts of the governor, basing its claims to a continuance of authority on the cedula of March 20, 1790, by which the king had authorized the oidores to administer all the monopolies except tobacco.

On August 16, 1791, Governor Marquina answered the complaint of the audiencia in a memorial of his own, in which he set forth his position in summarized form, giving a history of the entire contention, and defining his position with precision and clarity. [318] He claimed that the cedulas which had been issued up to that time had recognized the right of the governor to dispose of these asesorias, which did not and never had belonged to the oidores by their own right. As superintendent of real hacienda, he (the governor) was judge-conservator of all the asesorias, and by cedula of March 20, 1790, he had been authorized to control them through his asesor. The latter official had also been ordered to administer the rent of tobacco directly as the agent of the governor and to supervise the others in the governor's name. The oidores had been forbidden to hold these positions, except under exceptional circ.u.mstances, which, in Marquina's judgment, did not exist at this time, [319] since there was present in the colony a special asesor whose duty it was to supervise these monopolies. The audiencia would have to try certain cases on appeal as a judicial body, and oidores who had already rendered decisions as judge-conservators could not justly render decisions when the same cases were appealed. He declared that he had the approval of the king in his contention, and was therefore confident of his position.

The governor's will prevailed, and the magistrates were deprived of the commissions which they had formerly held; these were given over to regular officials of real hacienda. Contentious cases, however, that did not pertain exclusively to finance were tried on appeal in the audiencia and that body exercised regular, but not special, jurisdiction in them thereafter.

One of the most important offices which the oidores were called on to perform was that of juez de difuntos. The duties of this office consisted largely in the administration of the funds and property of persons who died intestate, or without heirs in the colony. This work was entrusted to the colonial audiencia as a body in 1526, and any judge therein might be delegated from the tribunal for the adjustment of an estate.

The first law providing for a special administrator was proclaimed at Valladolid on April 16, 1550. It stated that many of the heirs of persons who died in the colonies had been defrauded of their rightful dues by the carelessness, omission, illegal procedure, and usurpation of the ministers who had diverted the property to their own uses; this condition of affairs made reform imperative. Viceroys and presidents of royal audiencias, while retaining power of removal for cause, were commanded henceforth to name, at the beginning of each year, an oidor from the local audiencia to act as juez de difuntos. [320]

This judge was authorized to collect, administer, rent, sell, and have general supervision over the property of deceased persons to the same extent that the audiencia previously had. The acts of the judge were appealable to the audiencia of the district wherein he officiated. On December 15, 1609, a law was proclaimed by Philip III which extended the term of this judge from one to two years. The early laws provided no extra salary for the juez de difuntos. It was prescribed that his decisions should be respected by the audiencia and by the other officials of the government, the viceroys and presidents being especially instructed not to allow any other official to usurp his functions.

In case the juez de difuntos should fail to execute his duties, or should exceed his powers, it was the duty of the fiscal to bring the abuse to the attention of the audiencia, and that tribunal was supposed to see that the proper methods were enforced. The jurisdiction of this special magistrate was to extend to the settling of the estates of intestates, and of testates leaving property to persons in Spain. His authority was valid over the property of deceased officials, merchants, and encomenderos, and it might be extended to the cases of foreigners. He also a.s.sisted in the disposal of property left by clerics. When the latter died intestate, the proceeds of their estates were added to the fund known as the bienes de difuntos. No distinction was made between property left by them and that left by civil employees of the government or private citizens. If these priests had made testaments, it was the duty of the juez de difuntos to see that the property reached the donees without the interference of the prelates. [321]

As in other cases noted in this and in former chapters, so in the administration of the estates left by intestate decedents the laws seem to have undergone considerable change. In 1526, Charles V ordered that such estates were to be administered under the supervision of the audiencia. In 1550, the place of special juez de difuntos was created in each audiencia, the post to be filled by a magistrate designated by the president. In 1653, Philip IV added to the importance of the office by decreeing that all intestate cases should be administered by a special juez de difuntos, irrespective as to whether the heirs were in Spain, or at the place where the death took place. [322] This law provided that if children or descendants were left whose legitimacy was unquestioned, the heirs being in the colony, or if a will legally attested and witnessed were left, the case was to be settled in the ordinary courts. If there were doubt, however, as to the validity of the claims of persons representing themselves as descendants, or if there were no heirs, the case would then be administered by the juez de difuntos. Settlements made by the ordinary justices were not reviewed in the royal audiencia. The authority accorded them frequently afforded pretexts for their intervention in cases which should have been settled by the juez de difuntos, particularly when heirs were left in Spain and in other colonies. A number of disagreements arose over this point, but all doubt was conclusively settled by the cedula of January 31, 1772, which awarded such jurisdiction to the juez de difuntos. [323] This was confirmed by the law of September 28, 1797. Foreigners residing outside the dominions were not allowed to inherit property left to them in the colonies, even though they were lineal descendants. [324] Heirs or others claiming property left by deceased persons must appear in person, or have others appear for them, properly authorized, and must prove conclusively their rights as heirs or creditors.

The cedula of September 28, 1797, was a codification and a recla.s.sification of all previous laws on the subject of this jurisdiction. The provisions of this law, briefly stated, were as follows: (1) These judges should not under any circ.u.mstances have jurisdiction over property left by will, or without will, when the heirs were present and when there was no question of their right to the property. (2) In order that these judges have power of intervention, it must be well known or appear by judicial process that either all the heirs or the greater number of them were absent. (3) They were not to have jurisdiction over property left by Indians or caciques. (4) They should not usually have authority to settle up the estates or property of native clerics, because their heirs would presumably be present. These cases were therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, unless it were shown that there were heirs in Spain. Under no circ.u.mstances should the ecclesiastical authorities have intervention in these cases. (5) When the heirs were present, the audiencia was ordered to enforce the law which forbade the intervention of both the juez de difuntos and the ordinary judge. [325] In these cases the heirs were allowed to a.s.sume their property intact, without its being sold and thereby costs incurred. (6) The practice which had hitherto been followed by the juez de difuntos of diverting a fifth of the property of those who died intestate for the repose of the souls of the dead should cease from that time onward, and the proceeds of said property should be handed over without deduction to the heirs and relatives of the deceased, in accordance with the cedula of June 20, 1766. [326] (7) The juez de difuntos was forbidden to intervene in the settlement of estates or property left to heirs by will. [327]

It would appear, then, that the oidor detailed as juez de difuntos had jurisdiction over cases of intestacy, over the settlement of property when no heirs were apparent, or when there was doubt as to the existence of heirs, and in cases where the designated testamentary donees were outside the colony. The ordinary justices administered estates in two capacities, namely, when testaments were to be executed, the heirs being present, or when they acted as agents for the juez de difuntos. The latter was privileged to call upon the corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and other ordinary justices to execute provisions in the provinces, and these officials were obliged, when so designated, to settle estates subject to the supervision of the juez. [328]

When the heirs were resident in Spain, or in some colony other than the Philippines, the estates of deceased persons were sold and the money was set aside to be remitted to Spain. The collective sum of these properties, sold and unsold, was designated as the bienes de difuntos. [329] At stated periods the juez de difuntos was required to turn over the funds that he had collected, or received in the execution of his duties, to the oficiales reales, first deducting three per cent of their gross amount for his services. [330] His accounts, which were sent to the Council of the Indies, were also audited by these officials, and the audiencia likewise held him accountable for any abuses or errors other than financial. He was also held responsible in his residencia. The fiscal was his prosecutor in case of suit. The juez de difuntos, on his part, was authorized to require reports from the agents and administrators who served him in the provinces, and all necessary safeguards were taken for his protection. [331]

Theoretically, the juez de difuntos, acting through the oficiales reales, sent such money as he had collected to the Casa de Contratacion of Seville, or, after June 18, 1790, the date of the extinction of that body, to the juez de arribadas in Cadiz. [332] Thence it was distributed among the heirs in various parts of Spain, or, in case no heirs were found, it was to remain in a fund by itself, until otherwise appropriated or disposed of by the crown. The money was sent at the risk of the heirs, eighteen per cent of the gross amount being deducted to pay the costs of transfer. [333] In actual practice, however, the funds derived from the Philippines were retained at Manila, itemized accounts of them being forwarded to Acapulco, the proper amount being deducted there from the annual subsidy. [334]

This rendered unnecessary the actual transfer of money. The juez de difuntos in Mexico received the funds from the Philippines, together with reports and accounts relating thereto, and remitted them to Spain. There occurred many instances in which this magistrate in Mexico found mistakes in the reports rendered by his subordinate in Manila. A great deal of criticism was made from time to time, of alleged irregularities in the administration of these funds in the Philippines; in fact, successive royal cedulas repeatedly charged the Philippine officials with maladministration. [335] The general superintendent of finance, Aparici, in a report to the Council, stated on July 19, 1797, that these funds had never been properly accounted for, and that glaring defects--even dishonesty, had always existed. [336] These faults, he alleged, were owing to the fact that the funds were not directly administered, but were paid into the treasury of Mexico, and that because of this roundabout method direct control could not be exercised. Although this high official pointed out these defects and made recommendations for the betterment of the service, no change was made, and the funds continued to be remitted to Mexico until 1815, when the suspension of the regular galleon eliminated the possibility of this practice. [337]

The juez de difuntos was frequently opposed in the exercise of his special jurisdiction by other officials of the colony. Many cases involving these conflicts of jurisdiction were appealed to the Council of the Indies. Among the most frequent were the quarrels which took place between the captain-general and the juez de difuntos over the question of the special military jurisdiction of the latter, and the claim of the juez de difuntos to administer the property of military and galleon officials. For example, on July 6, 1757, the juez appealed to the Council for jurisdiction over the property of a deceased galleon official on the basis of the rights conceded to him by the laws of the Indies; [338] the governor claimed the right to administer this property on the ground that the galleon officials were appointed by him, and that they were held by the laws of the Indies to be under the military jurisdiction. This case was decided in favor of the juez de difuntos, and may be considered as having established a precedent for his subsequent jurisdiction over such cases. [339]

Probably the most notable case of conflict between the civil and military jurisdictions and one which involved the juez de difuntos occurred at the time of the death of the lieutenant-governor and king's lieutenant, Pedro Sarrio. The latter had left his property by will to his brother, the Marques de Algorja, a resident of Alicante. He had appointed a resident of Manila as executor. The governor claimed that the right to administer the property belonged to the executor. The juez de difuntos, on the ground that Sarrio had left heirs in Spain, contended that the funds should be administered by him, as the executor did not have authority to transmit the property to Spain. This case was carried to the Council of the Indies; no record appears of its ultimate solution, but it is ill.u.s.trative of the commonly accepted principle that the juez de difuntos should have authority over the administration of all property which had to be transmitted to Spain for distribution among heirs. [340] The governor's contention against it was based on the fact that Sarrio was a military official. As we have already seen, the law of August 29, 1798, authorized the settlement of the property of soldiers by special military courts. [341]

Other sources of frequent dispute were the respective claims of the juez de difuntos and the oficiales reales for jurisdiction over property left by persons who were indebted to the royal treasury at the time of their death. On the occasion of the death of the corregidores of Tondo and Ilocos, in 1776 and 1778, respectively, without having made wills, the oficiales reales took steps to make an immediate seizure of the property of the deceased officials. They demanded that all doc.u.ments and papers pertaining to the cases should be surrendered at once into their hands in order that the amount owing to the government might be collected. Governor Basco y Vargas interposed on the ground that since these officials had died intestate, the settlement of their property should be effected by the juez de difuntos; it being inc.u.mbent upon the oficiales reales to present the claims to the judge. [342]

Shortly after this decision had been rendered, the alcalde mayor of Tayabas died, leaving a deficit of 7000 pesos, and the officials of the royal treasury immediately brought suit in the audiencia on the basis of the laws of the Indies for jurisdiction in the case prior to that of the juez de difuntos. They alleged that the law provided that the treasury officials should have precedence in collections, and that debts due to the real hacienda should be settled prior to all others. Moreover, they claimed that all officials should a.s.sist them in making these collections and that no restrictions should be placed upon their activities. Further evidence in support of the contentions of the treasury officials was submitted in the substance of the royal cedula of April 23, 1770, which declared that these judges should be entrusted exclusively with the collection of royal funds. "Furthermore," the cedula stated, "if any case shall arise which pertains to finance and at the same time to the juez de difuntos, the latter may not make the advocation, because, however favorable may be his jurisdiction, that of the royal treasury is more favorable." [343]

The oficiales reales insisted that they should not be required to go before the juez de difuntos for any purpose, since the laws of the Indies [344] gave them the power of inspecting the accounts of the juez de difuntos and of keeping and administering these funds. [345] The more recent cedula of October 13, 1780, had decreed that the accounts of the juez de difuntos should be approved by the treasury officials, and on this basis they were able to advance claims to seniority.

This dispute, though brought for adjudication before the audiencia, was not settled by the tribunal. The evidence pertaining to the case was collected and referred to the Council on December 22, 1786. The cedula which finally disposed of the matter was issued May 4, 1794, in the following terms:

It is indisputable that the ministers of our real hacienda are authorized to have jurisdiction over all debtors of my royal treasury ... with preference to the ordinary jurisdiction of the juez de difuntos, or to the judge commissioned to settle property of intestates or to pay creditors; ... the accounts of my real hacienda shall be settled by my royal judges before the juez de difuntos may have cognizance. [346]

By this decree it was definitely established that the treasury officials should have precedence over the regular judges in the settlements of estates of officials and individuals against whom the royal treasury had claims. After the demands of the government were paid, those of private individuals might be settled, and it was ordered that the juez de difuntos, as the champion of individual claims, should always give precedence to the oficiales reales who represented the interests of the government.

The organization for the administration of these funds presented a complete hierarchy. The actions of the juez de difuntos were subject to review by the Audiencia of Manila. The funds from the Philippines were deducted from the subsidy at Acapulco, and forwarded to the Casa de Contratacion of Seville (or the juez de arribadas at Cadiz, after 1790) by the juez de difuntos of Mexico. The heirs in Spain were then found, and the money transferred to them, less discounts covering costs of transmission to Spain. In case appeals were made from the decision or settlement of the juez de difuntos, the records of his proceedings in the case under consideration were reviewed by the Council of the Indies. The method of procedure there was to refer these doc.u.ments and accounts to the Contaduria General, where all accounts for the Council were audited and settled, and the recommendations of that tribunal were accepted. The const.i.tutional reforms of the nineteenth century gave the audiencia increased authority in the final settlement of these matters, and its decision was made final in practically all contentious cases, though, of course, final judgments involving heirs who were resident in Spain might still be appealed by them to the Council of the Indies or the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Aside from the activities of the magistrates as members of the juntas de hacienda, described earlier in this chapter, it would perhaps be safe to a.s.sert that the tribunal exercised general supervision over financial affairs in the colony until the time of the establishment of the intendancy (1785-87). Correspondence between the Council of the Indies and the Audiencia of Manila would seem to indicate that the magistrates were expected to transmit, and did send, in fact, reports on colonial finances to the Council of the Indies. Among the reports of the oidores about twenty of these periodical statements have been found, covering irregularly the period from 1609 to 1780. No doubt a complete set exists. These generally embody a detailed audit of the accounts of the oficiales reales. Numerous commissions were also sent to the audiencia from time to time, ordering the magistrates to give special attention to financial affairs, such as the collection of licenses from Chinese; to see that t.i.thes were efficiently collected and reported, to see that the tax on metals (mined) was paid, and offering special rewards in case of apprehension. It has already been shown that the king on August 8, 1609, asked the audiencia whether the king's fifth had been commuted to a tenth in the Philippines. On July 21, 1756, the audiencia reported on the number of ships that had entered the harbor of Manila during the year before. On May 4, 1760, Francisco Leandro de Viana, the fiscal, charged the merchants of Manila with wholesale fraud in the payment of the almojarifazgo, paying only 3% when the law of 1714, then in force, had ordered the payment of 8%. Viana's report charged the oidores with responsibility for this deliberate violation of the law, alleging that the oidores had been profiting thereby. It was on this occasion that the fiscal recommended the establishment of a consulado at Manila, which would remove from the magistrates of the audiencia all temptation to use their positions for private profit in violation of the commercial laws of the realm. [347] The part played by the magistrates in the administration of the trade with Acapulco may also be mentioned here. This will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. [348]

Apart from the extra duties and commissions already noted, the audiencia was utilized for a variety of purposes which are too miscellaneous to be cla.s.sified, but too important to be omitted from this discussion. Duplicates of executive orders relating to subjects far removed from the jurisdiction of the audiencia as a court, were sent to it, with instructions that the tribunal take note of numerous matters, such as seeing that the laws were properly executed, observing the effect of reforms, and reporting on their availability and adaptability at various times and places. Copies of new laws relating to civil and ecclesiastical affairs were sent to the audiencia for its information.

The above practices were never more prominently evident than during the const.i.tutional reforms from 1810 to 1823. [349] That period, of course, was a time of change and stress, and the audiencia seems to have been regarded as the one stable authority in the Philippines. Cedulas and executive orders were issued to the audiencia without regard to the department of government to which they applied. By the cedula of June 14, 1811, the audiencia was made responsible for the execution of all the orders of the superior government. On March 18, 1812, oaths of all civil and judicial officials were ordered to be administered by the audiencia. A royal order was received by the Audiencia of Manila on January 19, 1813, which forbade the existence of free-masonry in the Islands. The audiencia was made responsible for the execution of all these cedulas and decrees. On August 6, 1813, the tribunal acknowledged receipt of the law of April 25, 1810, which forbade foreigners to land in the Islands without pa.s.sports. The audiencia was again made responsible for the execution of the reforms of 1812, 1815, 1823, 1834, and 1835, by which the entire administrative and judicial systems of the colony were reorganized.

The conduct of officials was continually under the observation of the oidores, and special reports were frequently sent to the Council from the audiencia in review of the progress of the government in general, or in elucidation of some special phase of it. [350] A few more examples of these investigations which were charged upon the oidores may be reviewed here, together with the reports made by the magistrates in compliance with royal instructions.

The king, on August 9, 1609, wrote to the audiencia, asking for information concerning the truth of a certain report which had come to him regarding a custom practiced among the natives before the arrival of the Spaniards, and which was said still to be in operation. It had been a.s.serted that the children of a free man and a slave woman would be half-slave and half-free, and the progeny of these children by subsequent marriage would be cla.s.sed as a fourth, an eighth, or a sixteenth slave or free. It was said that the natives recognized varying degrees of freedom and slavery. The king, in the letter above referred to, expressed a desire to know the truth of these reports, and he ordered the audiencia to instruct him fully concerning these alleged practices and customs. He called attention to the existing law which forbade Spaniards to hold slaves, and he requested information as to how great a hold this barbarous custom had upon the natives, and how it might be eradicated with the least possible inconvenience and loss. [351]

The audiencia was required to submit data regularly concerning the religious orders, showing the number of friars belonging to each order and designating the provinces that were held by each. The tribunal was often asked to make recommendations for the regulation of the religious. As we shall note in a subsequent chapter, one of the regular duties of the audiencia was to send in a yearly report on the number of religious arriving in or departing from the Islands. The tribunal had jurisdiction over the royal colleges and universities; it exercised supervision over courses of study and instruction given in them, and the oidores reported concerning these matters from time to time.

The audiencia kept the court informed as to the number of Spaniards in the Islands, the occupation of each, and his att.i.tude toward the government. It reported on the number of Chinese and other foreigners in the Islands, the amount of tribute paid by the Chinese, and the extent of the Chinese trade. From time to time the magistrates were asked by the court to make special reports on these or other subjects. They were required to report from time to time on the number and services of the officials of the government, major and subordinate, whether they were all needed, the quality of their services, and what reforms could be made to effect greater economy and efficiency. The audiencia was especially charged with the duty of seeing that the provincial officials were not so numerous as to be a burden on the natives. The government realized that oppression of the Indians would result from the presence of too many Spaniards among them, and the effort was continually made to limit the number of these undesirables. The audiencia, in short, was the representative of the king in all these matters.

On several occasions the audiencia a.s.sumed the initiative, or a.s.sisted materially, in the accomplishment of various functions of an extraordinary character. It played an important role in checking the epidemic of smallpox which ravaged the Islands from 1790 to 1794. On January 18, 1790, Governor Marquina reported that this disease had been playing havoc with the Indians in various parts of the Islands. [352]

He had raised 2385 pesos by voluntary contributions from different officials and corporations, and had appointed a committee to administer the funds. This committee consisted of representatives of the different religious communities and the consulado, the archbishop, the chief of the contaduria, the fiscal, the regent and the magistrates of the audiencia. Soon after this letter was written Marquina's residencia was taken, and the king, on January 24, 1794, wrote to the regent, asking him to act as executive of the general committee already appointed to conduct the campaign against this epidemic, and to report what progress had been made in combatting it, suggesting that a general committee of sanitation should be const.i.tuted to handle such cases in the future. [353]

In the cedula of November 26, 1765, we find another ill.u.s.tration of the extraordinary functions of the magistrates of the audiencia. The governor was ordered on this occasion to appoint a committee to consider ways and means of remedying the damage done to agriculture and commerce in the Islands as a result of the depredations of the English upon their occupation of various parts of the Islands. This committee was to consist of the fiscal as president, the oidores, the chief of the contaduria, the alcaldes ordinarios of the city, and the alcaldes mayores of the districts immediately outside the city. It was ordered to meet at stated periods to discuss and recommend ways and means of improvement, proper taxation, and other measures calculated to bring about a revival of agriculture. This committee was the forerunner of the Sociedad de Amigos del Pais, which was established during the administration of Governor Jose Basco y Vargas. [354]

The variety of the functions of the audiencia is well ill.u.s.trated by a report made on July 20, 1757, in compliance with a royal order of inquiry as to how much money should be expended by the Philippine government on the inauguration ceremonies of the governor. [355]

Besides noting an added duty of the tribunal, this is ill.u.s.trative of the pomp and ceremony utilized to impress the inhabitants of the colonies with the grandeur of Spain and her government. After a lengthy investigation, the audiencia stated in reply that the government of Peru had been authorized to spend 12,000 pesos in the reception of a viceroy, while New Spain could spend 8000 pesos. As much as 4000 pesos had been spent in Manila in times past. Since the Philippines was a colony of less importance than these, and the governor there was of inferior rank to the viceroy, and as even these sums were extravagant, it was the opinion of the tribunal that the government at Manila should limit itself to an expenditure of 2000 pesos. This may be considered as an example of the work accomplished by the oidores in checking the excesses of the other officials and departments of the government. [356]

The audiencia had general authority over the inspection and censorship of books which were printed in the colony or imported. This power was conceded by a series of laws promulgated at different times from 1556 to 1668. [357] At the earlier date it was ordered that no book treating of the Indies should be printed without first having been inspected, approved, and licensed by the Council of the Indies, and none could be introduced into the Indies without the express permission of that body. [358] Books of fables and other profane publications were not allowed in the colonies under any circ.u.mstances. The Council of the Indies, by enactment of May 8, 1584, authorized the audiencia to publish books and dictionaries in the native dialects, and a later law stipulated that twenty copies of each book should be sent to the Council of the Indies to be placed on file there. [359] The oidores and the oficiales reales whose duty it was to inspect the ships which arrived from New Spain were ordered to search for forbidden and heretical books, but in doing this they must act in conformity with the expurgatories of the Inquisition. [360] By cedula of October 10, 1575, and of December 2, 1580, the right to print books of prayer and of divine service for Spain and the Indies was conceded to the monastery of San Lorenzo. This same cedula ordered that viceroys, presidents, and oidores should see that no other service-books were used in the churches and monasteries, and that books printed by any other agency should not be permitted to enter the Islands. [361]

In conformity with the above regulations, the Audiencia of Manila, on July 21, 1787, suppressed a book which had been written by the commissary of the Inquisition, on the ground that this functionary had published it on the authority of the archbishop alone, and without authorization of the Council of the Indies, as was required by law. The case was appealed by the commissary to the Council, and the latter body, while approving the action of the audiencia in suppressing the book, and reprimanding the archbishop, after an examination of the volume, allowed its publication in conformity with the laws of the Indies. [362] Taken together, the relations of the audiencia and the commissary of the Inquisition in most matters, and particularly in the publication of books, were harmonious, and the same strife and trouble did not occur in the Philippines that developed in Mexico, Naples, and Peru over the question. [363]

On January 26, 1816, the audiencia forbade the publication of any book without its express permission. [364] As a result, considerable trouble arose with the governor and the fiscal, neither of whom had been consulted when the auto was pa.s.sed. The fiscal contended that the audiencia was violating the law which had reserved to the Council the power to give licenses for the publication of books; moreover, it was a.s.serted, the law required the governor and audiencia to act in acuerdo in matters pertaining to the suppression and licensing of books, the tribunal not being authorized to proceed alone. The audiencia contended in reply that these laws could no longer be interpreted to mean that the governor should have authority over matters of a purely judicial nature, such as these were, because he was no longer president of the audiencia, and hence not a judicial official. [365]

The tribunal furthermore based its contention on two enactments--one, a royal order dated October 1, 1770, which directed certain prelates to apply to the audiencia for permission to have a religious work published, and the other, dated July 21, 1787, already cited, by which the king confirmed the refusal of the audiencia to allow the publication of a work prepared by the commissary of the Inquisition, when he had failed to seek the authority of the audiencia. It is clear, however, that on this occasion the audiencia was guilty of deliberate misinterpretation of the law in its own favor. The Council of the Indies had the final right to decide as to the contents of the book, and the audiencia merely suspended publication, pending the action of the Council. The audiencia was never given the power to pa.s.s finally on the contents of books, except those dealing with languages and dialects. The ultimate right of pa.s.sing on all religious publications was retained by the Council of the Indies, while the audiencia was authorized merely to suspend the publication and circulation of books which had not complied with the above royal ordinances. After the suppression of the Council of the Indies and the establishment of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, there was a tendency toward giving the colonial governments a wider degree of lat.i.tude in such matters.