The Spanish system of colonial administration was an adaptation beyond the seas of fundamental administrative, judicial and ecclesiastical institutions and principles which had grown up and had proved serviceable throughout a long period of successful use in Spain. As the audiencias and their allied officials had shown themselves to be efficient as agencies of centralization in the isolated provinces of Spain, so they were utilized, by the organization which they effected, to bring the colonies nearer the mother country. When Spain was confronted with the necessity of governing her vast empire, it was natural that she should profit by her former administrative experience, and make use of those institutions of government which had proved successful at home. The purpose of the present chapter is to emphasize the fact that, these institutions which had served in Spain, and were still in process of development there, were utilized in all of the colonies. The Philippine audiencia, which will be more particularly studied in subsequent chapters, was not a rare and isolated exception, but rather an integral part of a great administrative system. In accordance with the terms of the concession made by the Catholic Monarchs at Santa FÉ on April 30, 1492, Columbus was given the title of “Admiral, Viceroy, and Governor of the Undiscovered When Columbus undertook his second and later voyages the Catholic rulers began to modify the conditions of the original compact by sending royal representatives with him to take account of his expeditions. The difficulties which Columbus had in the government of his West Indian colony are too well known to be more than referred to here. Through the influence of Fonseca, and the gradual realization of the tremendous size and importance of the new dominions, the rulers of Spain began to feel that a mistake had been made in granting to this Genoese sailor and to his heirs the complete proprietorship and government In 1507, the towns of EspaÑola petitioned the king for the same privileges and forms of government as were possessed by the towns of Spain. The request was granted, and municipal rights were bestowed upon fourteen towns. These concessions included the privilege of electing their own regidores and alcaldes ordinarios inasmuch as the kingdoms of Castile and of the Indies are under one crown, the laws and the order of government of one should be as similar to and as much in agreement with the other as possible; our royal council, in the laws and establishments which are ordered, must strive to reduce the form and manner of their government to the style and order by which the kingdoms of Castile and LeÓn are governed and ruled, to the extent that the diversity and difference of the lands and nations permit. In 1511, a tribunal of independent royal judges was constituted in the colony of EspaÑola to try cases appealed from The law, which has been cited already, providing that the administration of the Indies should be patterned in all ways after the governments of Castile and LeÓn, shows very clearly the natural influence of the early history and institutions of Spain. The audiencias established in the colonies were at first similar in jurisdiction and organization to those of Spain, which country had already succeeded in governing provinces that were, in effect, almost as isolated and as far from actual contact with the court as were the Indies. The audiencia of Spain had proved of immense value as an agency of direct control. It had been found satisfactory under conditions very similar to those in the Indies, which were not regarded as foreign possessions, but as integral parts of Castile, being the property of the monarchs of that kingdom, and under their personal direction. Before proceeding with a description of the growth of the audiencia system, it is desirable, first, to note the establishment in Spain of two organs for the administration of colonial affairs. These may be examined here conveniently, because their creation antedated the institution of the audiencia in the colonies. The first, chronologically, as well as in importance, was the Casa de As established in 1503, the Casa de ContrataciÓn consisted of a treasurer, auditor (comptroller), and factor. The beginnings of the Council of the Indies may be noted in the creation of a special committee of the Council of Castile for the supervision of administrative affairs in the colonies. This was eight years after the establishment of the Casa de ContrataciÓn, when another need than the purely commercial, for which the Casa de ContrataciÓn had served, began to be felt. It is our royal will that the said council shall have the supreme jurisdiction in all our occidental Indies ... and of the affairs which result from them, ... and for the good government and administration of justice, it may order and make with our advice, the laws, pragmatics, ordinances and provisions, general and particular, ... which ... may be required for the good of the provinces ... and in the matters pertaining to the Indies, that the said our council be obeyed and respected, and that its provisions in all, and by all be fulfilled and obeyed in all particulars. The Council of the Indies, as established in 1524, consisted of a president, a high chancellor, eight members who were lawyers, a fiscal, two secretaries and a lieutenant chancellor. The Council of the Indies was the high court of appeal to which all cases from the colonial audiencias came for final adjudication. It was, however, not only a court of appeal in judicial The unqualified success of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo, both as a tribunal of justice and as an administrative organ, led to the general establishment of the institution throughout the Spanish colonial empire. The audiencias which were created in Spain’s colonies from 1526 to 1893 follow in the order of their establishment. Santo Domingo, created September 14, 1526, consisting of a president, four oidores, Mexico, PanamÁ, created February 30, 1535, with a president, four oidores and a fiscal. Lima, created November 20, 1542, with two chambers, a civil and Santiago de Guatemala, created September 13, 1543, with a president, five oidores, and a fiscal. Guadalajara, created February 15, 1548, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal. Santa FÉ (New Granada), created July 17, 1549, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal. La Plata (Charcas), created September 4, 1559, with a president, five oidores, and a fiscal. San Francisco de Quito, created November 29, 1563, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal. Manila, created May 5, 1583, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal. Santiago de Chile, created February 17, 1609, with a president, four oidores, and a fiscal. Buenos Ayres, created November 2, 1661, with a president, three oidores, and a fiscal; recreated July 2, 1778, when Buenos Ayres was made a viceroyalty. Caracas, created June 13, 1786, with a regent, three oidores, and a fiscal. Cuzco, created February 26, 1787, with a regent, three oidores, and a fiscal. Puerto Rico, created June 19, 1831, to consist of a president, regent, three oidores, and a fiscal. Havana, created September 26, 1835, reorganized June 16, 1838, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and two fiscales. Puerto PrÍncipe, transferred in 1797 from Santo Domingo, reorganized September 26, 1835, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and a fiscal. This audiencia was suppressed and its territory added to that of Havana on October 21, 1853. It was recreated on February 22, 1878, and on May 23, 1879. Santiago de Cuba, created September 26, 1835, to consist of a regent, four oidores, and a fiscal. This audiencia was later suppressed, and its territory was added to the Audiencia of Havana; it was again reformed and added to Puerto PrÍncipe on February 22, 1878. CebÚ (Philippines), created February 26, 1886, to consist of a president, four magistrates, a fiscal, and an assistant fiscal. VigÁn (Philippines) created on May 19, 1893, to consist of one It will be noted that the audiencias of Mexico and Lima contained the greatest number of magistrates. They were divided into two salas, a civil and a criminal, with appropriate judges and fiscales for each. there are founded twelve royal audiencias and chanceries ... in order that our vassals may have persons to rule and govern them in peace and justice, and their districts have been divided into governments, corregimientos and alcaldes mayores who will be provided in accordance with our orders and laws and will be subordinate to our royal audiencias and to our Supreme Council of the Indies ... and may no change be made without our express order or that of the Council. Many changes were made in the territorial jurisdiction of the various audiencias. The audiencias of Lima and Mexico, in addition to their jurisdiction over their respective viceroyalties, exercised governmental authority over the adjacent districts when the viceroys were absent; the Audiencia of Lima over Charcas, Quito and Tierra Firme (PanamÁ), and that of Mexico over what was later Guadalajara, the Philippines, and YucatÁn. All of these, except the latter, came to have audiencias, with the usual powers and authority. The first seven audiencias were founded by Charles V. Three Territorially, the audiencias of Santo Domingo, Mexico, and Lima were the nucleii from which and around which most of the other audiencias were established. Being the first in their respective sections, they included more territory than they could govern with facility; thus it later became necessary to divide up their districts. Santo Domingo held sway at first over EspaÑola, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, with authority also over Venezuela and subsequently over Louisiana and Florida. The audiencias of Guadalajara, Santiago de Guatemala, and Manila all set definite limits to the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Mexico. The Audiencia of Lima had authority at first over most of Spanish South America, but its scope was in the same manner diminished from time to time by the establishment of the audiencias of Santa FÉ, La Plata (Charcas), Quito, Santiago de Chile, and Buenos Ayres. Before the Audiencia of Cuzco was instituted in 1787, jurisdiction over that ancient city and district was divided between the audiencias of Lima and La Plata; Árica, although it belonged to the district of Lima, was not governed under that jurisdiction, but was administered by a corregidor directly responsible to the audiencia at Charcas. Cuba was early divided into two districts under the rule of captains-general, those of Havana and Santiago de Cuba. Although all the audiencias had the same rank before the Council of the Indies, both as political and judicial tribunals, those of Lima and Mexico may be said to have been tribunals of the first class, for reasons which we have noted. Indeed, it must be remembered that it was the individual captaincy-general that had an audiencia, whether the captaincy-general happened to be a viceroyalty or not. Judged by the amount of power they exercised, there were three classes of audiencias: those of the viceroyalties, of the captaincies-general, and of the presidencies. On this basis of classification, it may be said that the first-mentioned were the superior institutions. In matters of military administration, the captains-general had the same power as the viceroys, while the audiencias exercised less intervention in the government than in the presidencies. Before proceeding with a study of the powers and duties of the colonial audiencias, it would be well to compare them, as to extent of jurisdiction and authority, with those which were in operation in Spain. Were they equal? Did the colonial institutions, on account of their isolation, exercise prerogatives which were unknown to the tribunals of the Peninsula, or vice versa? These questions were answered by Juan de SolÓrzano y Pereyra, a distinguished Spanish jurist, oidor of the Audiencia of Lima in 1610, and subsequently councillor of the Indies. The colonial audiencias were instructed to guard the royal prerogative, and were authorized to try all persons accused of usurping the royal jurisdiction. They were to see that officials, lay and ecclesiastical, did not charge excessive fees for their services, limiting especially those exorbitant charges which priests were apt to demand at burials, funerals, marriages and baptisms. The colonial audiencias were given supervision over espolios, Although viceroys and governors were granted special jurisdiction over administrative matters, they were authorized to call upon the acuerdos With the exception of the entertainment of the recurso de fuerza, none of the above-mentioned functions could be exercised by the audiencias of Spain. Although the colonial audiencias were to a large extent patterned after those of Spain, they had greater power and exercised more extensive functions almost from the beginning. This was chiefly owing to the added responsibilities of government resulting from the isolation of the colonies and their distance from the home government. The audiencias in Spain remained almost purely judicial. There was no need or opportunity for them to encroach upon the executive, or to usurp its functions, because of the control exercised by its immediate representatives. In the colonies the audiencias were themselves established as the agents of the royal authority, with the special duty of limiting the abuses of the officials of the crown. In this capacity, aside from their customary duties, the tribunals exercised far-reaching authority of a non-judicial character. It is desirable to point out in this connection that all the colonial audiencias utilized the same law in common. CÉdulas, edicts, and decrees were issued to them from a common source, to be executed under similar circumstances, or on particular occasions when local conditions demanded such action. The great code of 1680, the RecopilaciÓn de leyes de los Reinos de las Indias, has already been described as containing laws, both general and particular, for the regulation of the colonial audiencias. In the foregoing paragraphs attention has been directed briefly to the relations of the audiencias and executives with each other, and with the central government. Some notice at least should be given to the means by which the will of the executive and judiciary was enforced and executed upon and in the local units, the provinces and towns. We have already seen that the offices of the corregidores, alcaldes mayores and the alcaldes ordinarios developed in Spain, the first with jurisdiction over the larger districts, the alcaldes mayores over the smaller areas and large towns, and the alcaldes ordinarios in the municipalities. In a general sense, this system was carried into the colonies; the corregidores and alcaldes mayores were in charge of the Much the same intercourse and relations existed between these officials in the colonies as had been characteristic of the similar ones of Spain. But there were some differences: while in Spain the alcaldes were in most cases city judges, subject to the corregidores, These chiefs of provinces were responsible to the audiencias in matters of justice and to the viceroys or captains-general in administrative affairs. In Indian relations and in questions involving encomiendas they were subject to the executive, who had jurisdiction in first instance, with appeal to the audiencia. The tribunal could grant encomiendas in default of the regularly appointed executive. In financial matters the corregidores and alcaldes mayores were responsible to the executive, but they acted as the agents of the treasury officials (oficiales reales) in the collection of the revenue. In their provinces they supervised the building of ships, the construction of roads and bridges, the repartimientos or polos Tributes from the Indians, tithes from the encomenderos and other kinds of local taxes were collected by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores. Acting for the vicepatron, these officials represented the subdelegated authority of the king over the monasteries and churches of their provinces. They officiated at the formal bestowal of benefices, they were expected to maintain In like manner they were supposed to prevent the ecclesiastical judges from exceeding their power, and particularly from transgressing the royal jurisdiction, which frequently occurred in the earlier years when that authority had not become clearly defined or firmly established. As the churchmen with whom these officials had to deal derived their authority from the higher prelates and the provincials of the orders and often acted by their direction, their opposition to the local officials of the civil government was frequently so effective that the latter were obliged to appeal to the audiencia. The latter tribunal had the power necessary to deal with these cases, and to restrain the offending churchmen, by bringing pressure to bear upon their prelates and superiors. The provincial governors also had certain military duties. In the northern provinces of New Spain they had charge of defense, with responsibility to the viceroy. It has been already pointed out that the alcaldes mayores and corregidores had extensive judicial duties; a mere restatement of that important fact will suffice at this time. In subsequent chapters we shall study in detail numerous illustrations and instances of the judicial functions of the provincial judges. It has been noted also that the alcaldes ordinarios were the judges of the Spanish towns. So they were in the Philippines, but, as there were only four or five Spanish towns in the archipelago, the alcaldes ordinarios do not assume great prominence in this study. These alcaldes were usually chosen by the ayuntamientos (municipal councils), though they were appointed on some occasions by the governors. As the Spanish towns enjoyed special privileges conferred by the king, their judges were not a part of the regular judicial hierarchy, but were dependent on their ayuntamientos or the governor. However, an oidor was usually delegated to inspect the work of the alcalde ordinario. With this introductory view of the general field of Spanish colonial administration, and this presentation of the characters and elements which are to assume important roles in this discussion because of their frequent relations with the audiencia, we may enter upon a more detailed study of a single institution. It has been emphasized especially that the audiencia in the Philippines was only an integral part of the governmental machinery used in the colonial empire of Spain. It is clear, therefore, that we are not studying an isolated tribunal, for every royal cÉdula promulgated to the Philippine audiencia was in some way related to those issued to ten or eleven other audiencias of equal status or similar character. Although the Philippines were apart physically, this institution, with its relation to the provincial and colonial governments on one hand, and the home government on the other, brought the colony as close as possible to Spain, and to the other colonies. It is certain that the growth of audiencias was a part, not only of colonial, but of Spanish historical and institutional development. These institutions served the same purpose in the colonies that they accomplished in Spain; they were utilized for the administration of justice, and to check the excesses and abuses of officials. They were important because they facilitated a greater degree of centralization. They converged the provincial, colonial, intercolonial and home governments in the same manner as the audiencias in Spain brought about unity in provincial and national judicial administration. In the Spanish colonies an alcalde was usually an ordinary judge, not always trained in the law to the extent of being a letrado or togado. An alcalde ordinario or an alcalde de ayuntamiento tried cases in first instance. An alcalde mayor or an alcalde de partido might try cases on appeal from these. Generally speaking, alcaldes ordinarios were town judges, in contrast to alcaldes mayores who had provincial jurisdiction as well. Alcaldes ordinarios and regidores were members of the town ayuntamientos or cabildos (municipal councils). Regidores did not exercise judicial functions. The oidor is also to be distinguished from the alcalde del crimen. The latter existed only in the larger audiencias of Mexico and PerÚ, or in Manila, Havana or Puerto Rico in the later nineteenth century. Alcaldes del crimen in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were subordinate in rank to oidores, but by virtue of the reforms of 1812, 1836 and 1837, the latter were required to be togados, and the ministers of all the audiencias were placed in the same class. (Escriche, Diccionario, I, 154; I, 363–369; II, 661; Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 297; see also PÉrez y LÓpez, Teatro de la legislaciÓn, XXI, 351–369; IV, 525–528; MartÍnez Alcubilla, Diccionario, I, 525–526.)
The laws of March 2, 1618, and of November 17, 1626, ordered that in colonies having audiencias the acuerdos de real hacienda should be attended by the president (governor or viceroy), fiscal, senior oidor, and oficial real, respectively. In case there were no audiencia, the session should then consist of all the oficiales reales and the governor, and then the votes of the treasury officials should be final (RecopilaciÓn, 8–3–8, 11, 12). Under certain circumstances the factor was assisted by a veedor and a proveedor. The duties of the latter officials were largely administrative (ibid., 8–4–38 to 39). Bancroft (History of Mexico, III, 520) states that “the provinces of royal officials [oficiales reales] were merely revenue districts whose heads received their appointment from the king, and administered their office under a certain supervision from the viceroy and governors attending their councils; yet they were responsible only to the tribunal of finance in the viceregal capital, and this again reported direct to Spain.” See also Priestley, JosÉ de GÁlvez, 76–82. Various compilations were made by the oidores from time to time, either for their own use, or in compliance with the royal commands. Among the latter, perhaps the most famous and certainly the most useful was that of Juan de SolÓrzano y Pereyra, oidor of the Audiencia of PerÚ and later a member of the Council of the Indies. This collection was made at Lima in compliance with the commission of Philip IV, issued in 1610. The work, consisting of six volumes, received the stamp of royal approval on July 3, 1627. In 1623 LeÓn Pinelo published a Discurso sobre la importancia, forma, y disposiciÓn de la recopilaciÓn de leyes de Indias. On April 19 of that year Pinelo was ordered to make an examination of all the existing laws and cÉdulas relative to the government of the colonies, printed or in manuscript, with a view to codification. A magistrate named Aguilar y AcuÑa was ordered to collaborate with him. The result of these proceedings was a Sumario de la RecopilaciÓn General, which continued under process of compilation for a half century. It was finally perfected and published in 1677. In 1668 Pinelo’s work was issued as the Autos acordados y decretos de gobierno del Real y Supremo Consejo de las Indias. Although the collection was practically ready by 1677, it was not officially accepted until May 18, 1680. On that day it was promulgated by Charles II, king of Spain. On November 1, 1681, the work was ordered published by the India House, and the RecopilaciÓn de los Reynos de Indias was issued at Madrid in four volumes. Subsequent editions were printed in 1754, 1774, 1791 and 1841. The last-mentioned contains in its index reforms down to 1820. A RecopilaciÓn Sumaria was published in Mexico in two volumes in 1787. The compilations of Zamora y Coronado, RodrÍguez San Pedro and PÉrez y LÓpez, cited repeatedly in this work, contain later laws, and serve in the place of the RecopilaciÓn for the more recent periods. Authorities: SolÓrzano y Pereyra, PolÍtica Indiana, I, Introduction; G. B. Griffin, “A brief bibliographical sketch of the RecopilaciÓn de Indias” in Historical Society of Southern California, Publications, 1887; FabiÉ, Ensayo histÓrico de la legislaciÓn espaÑola; Puga, Provisiones, cÉdulas, (1563); Garcia Icazbalceta, BibliografÍa Mexicana del siglo XVI, (1886), 25–26; Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 550–551; History of Central America, I, 225–288; Antequera, Historia de la legislaciÓn espaÑola, 480–483. |