Chapter VIII · THE AUDIENCIA AND THE GOVERNOR: CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION

Although it may be said that the relations of the governor and the audiencia were comparatively peaceful and harmonious throughout the history of the Philippines, there were many conflicts of jurisdiction and these struggles for power assume great prominence on account of their bitterness. An investigation of the principles underlying them and the arguments advanced by the contending parties will go far towards explaining the relationship of the audiencia with the governor.

Certain factors and conditions were always prevalent in the colony to cause trouble and provoke enmity between the governor and the oidores. Chief among these were the rivalry between them for commercial profits, jealously of power and advancement, and the desire on the part of all, and particularly of the governors, to enrich themselves. Officials tended to regard their appointments as commissions to engage in profitable ventures and business undertakings—opportunities which were to be immediately improved. It is probable that the presence of the audiencia did more to check this tendency than any other agency, for the documents bearing on the history of the colony are replete with charges made by oidores and fiscales against governors. It is also true that the oidores did effective work in correcting the misdeeds of the provincial governors and justices on their official tours of inspection. That the audiencia should accomplish this result was to be expected, since the leading purpose of its establishment was to check the excesses of the governor. The other side of the question cannot be neglected, however, for charges were made in sufficient number against the oidores. It is with these charges and counter-charges, memorials, complaints, and arguments that the present chapter is concerned.

The method to be pursued in this chapter will be that of indicating in all fairness both sides of these conflicts, not with the purpose of seeing which side was right, but with the object of obtaining the respective viewpoints of the governors and magistrates. We shall first consider evidence which was submitted in behalf of the audiencia against the governor, and in turn, that of the governors against the oidores. This method of procedure is the only one feasible since the materials here utilized consist mostly of arguments for or against the governor or audiencia, respectively.

Perhaps no governor more flagrantly disregarded the audiencia and the royal authority which it represented, or more frequently laid himself open to complaints on account of his violent conduct than Alonso Fajardo, who ruled from 1618 to 1624. Numerous charges were brought against him by the audiencia, some of which concerned itself, and some had to do with the general administration of the government. It was charged that Fajardo sought to usurp the judicial functions of the tribunal, and to assume control of the administration of justice. He had on one occasion broken up a session of the court during the trial of a certain person for murder, ordering a sergeant to take him out and hang him. Fajardo defended himself against this accusation by alleging that the criminal was a sailor from the royal fleet, whom he, as captain-general, had already condemned, and that the audiencia was acting illegally in entertaining the case. Fajardo was said to have released prisoners at his own pleasure, and to have abused the pardoning power. He had made threats of violence against the magistrates in the court-room.

The memorial presented by Messa y Lugo was chiefly concerned with the story of his own arbitrary arrest and imprisonment at the instigation of Fajardo on trumped-up charges, as he alleged. The judicial inquiry lasted two months, and it furnishes an excellent example of the power of a governor over a weak audiencia. The occasion for the investigation had been a disagreement between the governor and the oidor over the latter’s claim to act as administrator of the property of Oidor Alcaraz, who had died in office. The governor, by the appointment of a magistrate favorable to himself as juez de difuntos, had hoped to control the administration of the property, since Messa was under sentence of residencia, and the remaining magistrates of the audiencia were favorable to him. Moreover, Fajardo wished to forestall certain charges of misgovernment which he knew that Messa was prepared to make against him. Consequently the governor designated an alcalde of the city to conduct the residencia. Messa was given practically no opportunity to defend himself. His property was sequestrated, even to his wife’s clothing. Seeing that he could not obtain justice, he escaped from prison and took refuge in a Dominican convent.

The oidor then proceeded to show the extent to which, in his opinion, the governor might intervene in the sessions and proceedings of the audiencia. He wrote:

This is the interpretation which Messa placed upon the law giving authority over the trial of magistrates of the audiencia to the governor.

Messa then proceeded to discuss other matters relative to the respective spheres of the governor and audiencia. The governor had broken open the chest of the audiencia, extracting a large sum and spending it without accounting for the expenditure, and without any beneficial results. He was guilty of four murders, one of his victims being his wife. The audiencia should be empowered to try him for these crimes, but it lacked jurisdiction. During his term Fajardo had exercised such absolute power that justice had been paralyzed and litigants were holding back their suits from trial because justice could not be obtained in the audiencia. The governor had sent from the Islands more than a million pesos in goods and money, all of which he had obtained through fraudulent and illegitimate means.

The governor had quarreled finally with the oidores who had remained faithful to him; one of these had become incapacitated through sickness, while the other had taken refuge in a Jesuit convent. The audiencia was thus dissolved. The governor, feeling the need of a tribunal, withdrew the charges against Messa, and ordered the latter to come back and resume his office. The oidor complied, but his hostility toward the governor had in no way abated. Messa concluded his memorial with the request that a visitor should be sent to the colony to investigate the charges which had been made against the governor, and at the same time to restore the audiencia to its rightful position in the colony. He stated his conviction that the office of governor should be abolished, and that the audiencia should be empowered to act in his place. This belief he justified by the statement that the audiencia had already successfully acted in the capacity of governor and had administered affairs with great satisfaction.

The power which the governor had of imprisoning and chastising magistrates of the audiencia who dared to oppose him, enabled him to emerge victorious in his struggles with that body. He was even able to completely suppress the audiencia. Nevertheless he was obliged, through the need of the tribunal which he had vanquished, to restore it again, although it was opposed to him. In no less than three cases governors, in order to comply with the law requiring that there should be at least one oidor of royal appointment, were obliged to restore to the audiencia magistrates who had formerly been under arrest. Being in possession of all the powers of an executive, the governor was usually able to reduce the audiencia to subserviency, unless the dispositions of the opposing oidores were such that they would not submit. On the whole, the audiencia seemed unable to check the excesses of the governor, by virtue of its authority, and the oidores were obliged to confine themselves to protests and appeals to the king; these, only after years of delay, effected the removal or punishment of the governor and the appointment of another to continue his excesses.

The complaints which Messa made on this occasion resulted in bringing to the Islands a visitor who conducted a lengthy, though somewhat tardy, investigation. Fajardo was already beyond the punishment of earthy kings and tribunals. But his property was seized and his heirs were fined; aside, however, from the removal of various of Fajardo’s subordinates, the government was but little better for the protestations and appeals made by the audiencia. The oidores, instead of obtaining the desired reform measures, were usually rewarded for opposing a tyrannical governor and appealing to the court for support, by a reprimand for quarreling and an admonition to be quiet and peaceful, to preserve harmony, to attend strictly to their own affairs, and to abstain from interference with the government. Indeed, judging from the many similar replies which the oidores received in answer to their charges against governors, it appears that the preservation of harmonious relations between the officials of the colony was much more important than good government. Usually, however, in these struggles between the audiencia and the governor the contentions of one side or the other were based on law and justice. The effectiveness of the Spanish colonial government would have been greatly increased had the Council of the Indies taken advantage of these opportunities to investigate the principles at stake and support the right side, rather than by issuing impotent injunctions and remonstrances.

The most significant controversy which ever occurred in the Philippines between the governor and the audiencia arose in connection with the banishment of Archbishop Pardo in 1683. It is not the purpose here to give a detailed account of the Pardo controversy, which will be discussed again in connection with the relations of the audiencia and the church. However, since this episode involves certain incidents illustrating important phases of the relationship of the governor and the audiencia, it is desirable to refer to it here in considerable detail.

Pimentel proceeded to relate that the governor then found himself embarrassed without the aid of an audiencia, and had accordingly formed another of his own selection. This body was careful to execute the governor’s will in every particular; consequently there was no check on his misrule. This new audiencia approved all the acts of the archbishop and refused to entertain the appeals of the ex-governor,

The Pardo controversy and its consequences show the extremes to which a weakened audiencia was reduced on occasion by a new governor who came to the Islands, armed with recent royal decrees instructing him to bring about peace and order. Curuzaelegui, assisted by the royal visitor, who bore instructions even more recent than those of the governor, imprisoned and exiled the oidores, confiscated their property and brought about their ruination and death. He then appointed another audiencia of his own choice. All these acts were strictly legal, and in accordance with his instructions. The governor’s conduct before the appointment of the visitor was more lenient and tolerant than afterwards. This shows that he realized the necessity of fulfilling the royal will, the policies of which were entrusted to Valdivia for execution, even at the expense of harmony with the local tribunal. Had he not been assured of the support of the church on the one hand, and of the royal approval on the other, as shown by the commission of Valdivia, it is improbable that he would have broken with the audiencia, or would have attempted to use his power so extensively. The presence of an audiencia was necessary to the government of Curuzaelegui. This is shown by his conciliatory attitude toward the tribunal of Vargas, until he knew that it was under the condemnation of the king, also by his own act in forming a new one. This controversy clearly illustrates the extent to which a governor might use his power, and it shows, on the other hand, the indispensable character of the audiencia, even at a time when it was least powerful. Curuzaelegui, in the name of the king, completely obliterated the legally constituted audiencia, appointing another to serve until it could be legalized by regular appointment.

The Dominicans were of the opinion that the governor had authority to discipline the oidores, but in so doing he could not go so far as to remove them from the tribunal unless commanded to do so by the Council of the Indies. Whatever disciplinary action the governor might decide on, it should not be taken on his own authority, but in the execution of the orders of the Council of the Indies.

The newly constituted audiencia busied itself at once with the task of government. Archbishop de la Cuesta, among others, questioned the legality of the tribunal’s opposition to the excommunication of its members. He was arrested by the governor, and then arose the contest which culminated in the murder of Bustamante, in the suppression of his audiencia and in the first officially recognized government by a prelate in the Philippines. The archbishop reappointed all the former magistrates to office, with the exception of Torralba, and the misdeeds of the government of Bustamante were saddled upon the ex-magistrate.

Two noteworthy considerations stand out prominently in connection with this struggle; first, the influence of the governor over the audiencia, and his power to deprive regularly appointed magistrates of their positions and to constitute a new audiencia if he chose, notwithstanding the prohibition of the laws, and, second, the complete control by a governor over an audiencia which he had created. It is not necessary to state that the Madrid government discredited all the later acts of Bustamante’s administration, including the recall of Torralba, who was a self-confessed criminal under arrest, when restored by the governor. There is nothing to show, however, that the king disapproved of the acts of Bustamante in creating a new audiencia, unless it were the royal approval of Cuesta’s act of reconstituting the old tribunal. Torralba, in his residencia, was made to suffer for all the misdeeds of his government (in reality that of the audiencia, Torralba being decano, 1715–1717), as well as for those of Bustamante (1717–1719).

The audiencia, after it had been reconstituted by the archbishop-governor, neglected to investigate the causes of the governor’s death, alleging as a reason that

In a word, the influence of the archbishop was sufficient to keep the audiencia from undertaking a formal investigation of the causes of the governor’s death. It was quite generally recognized that the murder had been committed in the interests of the prelate, probably by an assassin who had been in his pay, or in that of his friends, the Jesuits. This is another illustration of the subserviency of the audiencia to the governing power, on this occasion a churchman, who had actively participated in the removal of his predecessor.

Considerable attention has been given in another chapter to the charges made by the audiencia against Marquina at the time of his residencia. These complaints show that a state of continual disagreement had existed between these two authorities throughout the entire term of the governor, and the bringing of these charges was instrumental in making Marquina undergo a very strict investigation. Personal jealousy was no small factor in these continual recriminations. At no subsequent date, however, were the large issues at stake which were characteristic of the struggle between the audiencia and the governor at the time of Fajardo, Curuzaelegui, and Bustamante. Those were death-struggles on the issue of whether the audiencia should be an independent tribunal or whether it should be subservient and subject to the governor. During those struggles the tribunal was momentarily suppressed, or converted into an instrument, in the hands of the governor. But these were exceptional cases, and during the greater part of the long period of three hundred years the relations between the audiencia and the executive were not so discordant as they would seem to have been, judging by the instances cited in this chapter. The audiencia, on all occasions of dispute with the governor, was able to offer a formidable resistance to his so-called encroachments on the prerogatives of the tribunal. Although the governor, on most of the occasions noted above, occupied the stronger position, owing to his more recent instructions, the support given to him by the church, and his control of the residencias of the magistrates, nevertheless it may be said that either authority was sufficiently powerful and independent to be respected as an antagonist by the other, and each was indispensable to the other.

As a first instance we may note the criticisms which Governor Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas made of the first audiencia which served from 1584 to 1589. We shall also consider the complaints which Dasmariñas made against Pedro de Rojas, former oidor and later teniente and asesor of that governor (1589–1593). Dasmariñas came to the colony shortly after the first audiencia had been suppressed and from his correspondence one may estimate the prevailing opinion of the tribunal which had been recently removed. The governor wrote as follows:

The governor charged the audiencia, moreover, with having opposed the three per cent tax levied for the construction of the city wall. Indeed, he accused the magistrates of having influenced the friars to oppose all his acts as governor. He referred to the commercial excesses of the oidores, saying: “If the matter of inspection and the residencia held here had fallen to my order and commission, as it fell to that of the Viceroy of Nueva España, I would have proved to your Majesty the investments of past years.” He concluded with the statement that Rojas had been so busy with gain that he had been unable to attend to his other duties; he was “puffed up with the authority and name of auditor” (i. e., oidor). He protested against the transfer of Rojas to an office in Mexico, “for,” he wrote, “such men go delighted with their interests and gains from trade here, they are fettered and biased by their relations with the trade of this country.”

Thus we see that even this early in the history of the Islands, the oidores as well as the governors were accused of a predominating interest in commercial affairs.

Governor Pedro de Acuña recommended the suppression of the audiencia in 1604, although he said that he had had no serious trouble with that tribunal. His chief reason in favoring its removal was that an appreciable saving would be realized thereby. The audiencia was, moreover, very unpopular in Manila. He alleged that the name of oidor was so odious that it was in itself an offense. He stated that affairs had come to such a pass that

Here we have the case of a governor, who, in order to get along in harmony with a quarrelsome and unpopular audiencia, gave way to it on many occasions, and even incurred the displeasure of the residents of the colony on account of what seemed to them to be the governor’s easy-going attitude. His zeal for the king’s service, as he expressed it, moved him to recommend the abolition of the tribunal. He said that the audiencia would not be missed if it were removed, since there were only twelve hundred residents in the colony and there were few cases to be tried. Most of the suits arising in the Islands could be adjudicated by the alcaldes ordinarios and appeals could be sent to Mexico. The acuerdo, or administrative session, Acuña alleged, existed in name only.

In view of all these abuses and evils which, directly or indirectly, proceeded from the audiencia, Acuña maintained that all the powers of government, war and justice, should be concentrated in the office of governor and captain-general. The country, he said, was more at war than at peace. It was essentially military, by virtue of its location and isolation. Acuña contended that all authorities and departments of the government should therefore be dependent on a military chief rather than on a high court of justice which was out of sympathy with the spirit and needs of the colony. In a government so new as that of the Philippines, the same laws and punishments should not be enforced so rigidly as in more settled parts, yet the magistrates of the audiencia had failed to understand that their functions in a colony of this character should be in any way different than those of a similar tribunal in Spain. Acuña stated that there had been occasions in which the audiencia, in possession of partial evidence in regard to a military matter, had interfered with an action which the governor had wished to take. He had thus been rendered powerless to exercise sovereignty which rightfully belonged to him, and which, if put into effect, would no doubt have been for the best interests of the colony.

Acuña’s concluding statement very aptly sizes up the situation and voices his demand for the abolition of the tribunal. He wrote:

Governor Fajardo’s method of referring matters to the audiencia for advice is interesting. Instead of submitting questions to the acuerdo for the general advice and opinion of all the oidores, he was said to have sought to escape the obligation of acting in accordance with the advice given him, by asking the oidores for their individual opinions concerning matters on which he desired advice. The audiencia took exception to this method of procedure, alleging that he was thus escaping the responsibilities of the acuerdo. Fajardo defended himself against the accusation by the statement that the oidores met together so seldom that he had been unable to submit questions to the magistrates collectively in accordance with the law.

Fajardo also complained against the failure of the oidores to comply with his instructions in regard to the inspection of the provinces. He stated that the magistrates disliked to bestir themselves from their inactive and indolent lives amid the comforts of Manila, and no inspections had been made during the three years prior to the date of this letter. Philip III, without raising his voice in indignation or decreeing any punishment upon those officials who had refused to execute his decrees, mildly solicited that they should devote their care and attention to the matter in the future. He remonstrated that this was the only way in which the facts relating to the country and to the interests and needs of its people could be ascertained.

On his arrival in the Islands, Fajardo, as yet unfamiliar with the duties and conditions of his office, expressed his unwillingness to recommend the entire abolition of the audiencia, preferring to have present a council which he could consult regarding the problems of his new office. The tribunal in the Philippines was probably not so important as were those in Spain, under the immediate supervision of the king, “where,” as he expressed it,

Fajardo’s act in forming a new audiencia after he had suppressed the real one shows that the audiencia was essential to him in the two particulars mentioned by him in the above letter.

That his attitude towards this question was somewhat altered by three years’ experience as governor of the Philippines is shown in his memorial of July 21, 1621. On this occasion Fajardo argued against the continuation of the tribunal, showing himself to be of the same opinion as Acuña, who, it will be remembered, contended that because the colony was military in character, there should be one person to control affairs, without any interference whatsoever. He wrote:

He summarized as follows:

An abundance of evidence exists on both sides of this controversy; letters of complaint against the governor and charges against the oidores by the governor. The vividness and apparent directness of the charges and the apparent sincerity of both the governor and the oidores make it extremely difficult, and, in fact, quite impossible to decide on the basis of the evidence presented, who was right or wrong, which charges, true or untrue, and who was really responsible for the difficulties. It would appear that the king was prone to sympathize with the governor rather than with the audiencia, for in practically all cases the decision of the sovereign was adverse to the tribunal. The fact that the governor was the royal representative was probably a large factor in securing him the support of the home government. Yet, on the other hand, the audiencia was in the same sense the royal tribunal.

Governor Fajardo affords an example of a successful military man who, having won fame for himself in the wars of the continent, but without legal knowledge or administrative experience, was called to the government of a distant and isolated colony, with the responsibility of continuing in harmonious relations with a hostile civil and judicial tribunal on the one hand, with whose powers and functions he was not familiar, and an equally hostile religious institution on the other. Men of military training usually had great contempt for the abilities and good intentions of priests and lawyers in those days, and it was frequently evident, both by their actions and by their own confessions, that conquistadores of the stamp of Fajardo, Acuña, and Corcuera were little fitted for the exercise of administrative and governmental functions, however useful they might be in adding to the domain of the Spanish empire.

Thus, there being present in the colony a tribunal of trained lawyers who were at the same time capable and experienced administrators, the governors became accustomed to rely on them for advice and assistance, in compliance with the commands of the laws of the Indies. As one governor of military tastes and training succeeded another, each lacking administrative ability and experience, the audiencia came to assume an increased share in the governmental activity of the colony. This tendency was accentuated by the fact that the governor was absent from the capital city on campaigns of conquest and defense a large share of his time. Ability as a soldier and commander was always the chief criterion for the selection of a governor and captain-general, and military affairs were given more attention by far than matters of administration. Spain’s policy of selecting soldiers instead of administrators for the post of governor went far towards making the audiencia more than a court of justice, and towards giving it a share in the executive functions of government. This tendency was also furthered by the fact that the audiencia came to assume the entire administration on the death or absence of the governor, a power which it did not always exercise well, but which it always relinquished with reluctance.

The Salcedo affair in 1668–1670 emphasizes other differences than those of the audiencia and the governor, yet reference should be made to it in this connection, because, after all, the oidores were concerned indirectly in the struggle. An examination of the data at our command will reveal the fact that the refusal or failure of the oidores to intervene in behalf of the governor led to his defeat and humiliation by the commissary of the Inquisition. The audiencia might have prevented that disaster had the magistrates been so inclined.

It has been frequently stated in this chapter, that jealousy and rivalry were always determining factors in the relationship of the audiencia and the governor. A new executive, until familiar with the duties of his station, was always glad to seek the advice and assistance of the oidores, meanwhile permitting the audiencia to assume many functions which belonged to him as governor. A new governor was gracious, and agreeable to all, and we find that most of the favorable comments made concerning governors by magistrates, prelates, and officials were pronounced when the environment was new to them or to the governor. When the routine of official duties became irksome and opportunities for private profit presented themselves, as always happened in the course of time, friction arose, and jealousy and discord took the place of the goodwill and harmony which at first seemed so promising.

The most contaminating influence in the colony was the commercial spirit. Governors and magistrates engaged in trade on a large scale, and the churchmen also yielded to the commercial instinct. The latter assertion will be enlarged upon in its proper place; proof of the commercial activities of governors and magistrates has already been given. The resentment of the oidores always led them to place every conceivable opposition in the way of the governor when it was seen that he was obtaining more than his fair share of profit from trade, appointments, or indulgences to the Chinese. This led to a refusal to ratify his appointments in many cases, to oppose him in the acuerdo, to incite the residents of the colony against him, and to do everything possible to make a failure of his administration. Governors on the other hand might employ one of two methods in dealing with the magistrates. That most commonly pursued was to allow them a liberal share of the booty, commercial or political, the latter obtained by permitting them to disregard the law by giving offices to their relatives and followers, thereby purchasing their favor. The other method was to meet their charges with counter-charges, which were probably as truthful, though usually not so serious as those which the magistrates made against them. The administrations of those governors who openly opposed the audiencia and sought to keep it within the limits of its jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal, were most notable for their conflicts.

The Court of Madrid was unable to remedy these defects in colonial administration. It could and did discipline the officials by sending an occasional visitor, or by forcing them to give vigorous residencias, but these punishments only led to greater abuses in order to reimburse themselves for the fines which they had to pay. Officials were able to send away large sums of money and consignments of merchandise, and then, after having paid liberal penalties, they returned to Spain and lived in comfortable retirement. Acceptance of the office of governor, oidor, corregidor, or alcalde mayor was made with a foreknowledge that disputes would arise, enemies would bring accusations, and punishments would be meted out, whether deserved or not. This condition led to the abuses which have been noted, and the recriminations and struggles between authorities. From the view-point of these officials the Philippines were neither governed for the good of the natives nor for the residents, nor for the honor of Spain, nor for the propagation of the Catholic religion, but merely for the profit and advancement of those who were on the ground to take advantage of their opportunities. They were struggles for profit; pure and simple contests between the officials either to get all the proceeds possible from their offices or to keep other officials from getting all, and thus to get a share for themselves. There were exceptions, of course, to the conditions and circumstances just noted. Some able and well-intentioned men came to the Islands, as came to all of Spain’s colonies, among whom may be mentioned Oidor Antonio de Morga, the fiscal, Francisco Leandro de Viana, and Governors Anda y Salazar, Basco y Vargas, Aguilar, Enrile, and others of the nineteenth century when opportunities for gain were somewhat diminished. Some of these officials erred on the side of over-strictness, and their efforts to restrain the avarice of their colleagues and to infuse the spirit of honesty into their administrations united the opposition and led to battles as violent and unrelenting as those which were fought when all parties were dishonest.

In a chapter which deals alone with the conflicts of jurisdiction which occurred between the governor and the audiencia, it would be possible to arrive at an entirely mistaken conclusion. Disagreements and differences were frequent as well as pronounced, yet the history of the Philippines throughout the three hundred years of Spanish rule is not a record of perpetual strife. It is, of course, understood that no effort has been made in this chapter to describe all the struggles which occurred in the Islands between the audiencia and the governor. Those which have been reviewed were selected for the purpose because they illustrate, in a general way, the subjects over which disagreements arose, and the principles underlying them.

We have noted, in general, that the audiencia exercised functions and prerogatives which were not conferred upon it by the laws of the Indies. The type of men who were appointed to the office of governor and captain-general made inevitable the accretion of power in the hands of the magistrates. The audiencia gradually came to assume more attributes than the solely judicial ones. Necessity compelled the governor in many instances to entrust the tribunal with many of his own functions because of his lack of skill and experience as an administrator or on account of his devotion to military affairs. In these ways the acuerdo came to be legislative as well as advisory; the frequent absence of the governor, or his death, led to the audiencia’s assumption of the governorship and the tribunal was always reluctant to surrender the administrative powers once gained.

Jealousy between officials and the resultant conflicts of authority may be classified together as a cause of strife. These difficulties resulted in part from the fact that the sphere of authority of each official was not defined with exactness in the laws of the Indies, and also because those laws were often countermanded by later cédulas of whose existence the colonial officials were not always aware. Spanish laws were frequently repealed and subsequently put in force without notice; this was always a source of confusion. Then again the exceptional opportunities for trade offered by the transfer of the rich oriental cargoes at Manila tempted oidores and governors alike. The trading privileges conceded by the government did not always end when the limit of permission was reached. Some officials, and particularly governors, could command more than their rightful share of galleon space; this led to disputes and recriminations which often interfered seriously with the government. We have noted that the appointing power which belonged nominally to the governor and which was shared by the oidores was also a source of much trouble. The knowledge that the residencia would ultimately bring about the punishment of guilty officials and enemies, the distance and isolation of the colony, and the length of time necessary for communication—all these factors made it possible for officials to commit excesses. Another cause of discord was what might be termed the reaction of the executive against the increased power and authority of the audiencia. This accretion of power was due to the complete dependence of the governor on the tribunal in administrative matters, especially at the beginning of his term, the increasing power of the acuerdo, the superiority of the audiencia as a court of appeals from the decisions of the governor, and the fact that the latter always needed the presence of the audiencia to lend legality to his government.

It may be stated, nevertheless, that the governor actually held the more powerful position in the colony, and that he most frequently emerged victor in the various struggles with the audiencia. Various reasons may be assigned for this. The governor was the personal representative of the king, and in this capacity he had the backing of the home government. He commanded the military forces in the colony. The authority of the royal patronage was vested in the governor; he was thus often able to command the support of the church and clergy in his struggles with the audiencia. The authority over the disposal of offices, either by sale or appointment belonged legally to the governor, although this power was effectively disputed and often shared by the audiencia. The governor employed the last-mentioned power on some occasions to the extent of reforming and reconstituting the audiencia, thus making the government entirely dependent on him. A new governor always carried with him a more recent appointment than those of the oidores whom he found in the colony, and aside from this he usually possessed definite instructions embodying the royal will on all current issues. The control of the residencias of the oidores was usually in the hands of the governor, and lastly, the laissez faire attitude of the Spanish government, its extreme conservatism, and its apparent reluctance to correct the evils and abuses which were reported to it—all these were potent factors in leaving the balance of power as it had been, in the hands of the governor, notwithstanding the presence of the audiencia.