Note 13 — FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE ISLANDS, 1766

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.” ↑