[Translation of foregoing.]

PIUS IX, PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.

That the memory of the thing may be in the future preserved.

1. We believe it to be necessary for the governance of souls and for the care of their salvation that those dioceses which may appear to reach to too extended limit should be divided.

2. Now, although that part of the diocese of Monterey which belongs to the Republic of Mexico was lately cut off and put under the archbishop of Mexico, to be ruled by his apostolic administation, yet the said diocese is recognized to have so wide an area that the present bishop of Monterey, together with the archbishops and bishops of the United States of North America, have had a care to petition us from their council in Baltimore that there should be (further) divided from the (said) diocese of Monterey that part which is bounded (as follows): To the east by the river Colorado; to the north by the 42d degree of latitude; to the west by the Pacific Ocean, and to the south by the southern parallel passing through the town commonly known as Pueblo San Joseph, and they pray that we may erect a diocese out of the region so divided, and that its seat shall be placed in the city of San Francisco. Moreover, since the other archiepiscopal sees are very distant, and it would seem of the greatest advantage to create a new ecclesiastical province in Upper California, therefore the aforesaid prelates have begged us to declare metropolitan this new church of San Francisco (since this one is the more convenient under many heads), and (they beg) that we should assign the episcopal church of Monterey as suffragan to such a metropolitan see.

3. We therefore, having first deliberated with our venerable brothers their eminences the cardinals entrusted with the propagation of the faith, and having accurately weighed each matter, seeing that by the erection of this archiepiscopal see no small advantage that would seem to fall to the spiritual governance of Christians, we freely and cheerfully agree to the petition of the aforesaid prelates. Wherefore with full knowledge, and after mature consideration and on the fulness of our apostolic power, we divide and separate that upper part of the diocese of Monterey which is described above, according to the limits there set down, from the aforesaid diocese, and we erect that region into a separate and specially named archiepiscopal see, and we place its seat in the city of San Francisco.

4. Moreover we desire that there should be attributed to the said see and to its prelates all and singular, of those privileges, honours, and offices which by right or custom belong to bishops and episcopal

sees.

5. Notwithstanding anything that our apostolic chancery and we ourselves may, etc.

Given at Rome at St. Mary Majors under the seal of the fisherman, on the 29th day of July, 1853, in the eighth year of our pontificate. Extract taken from the Collection of Pontifical Jurisprudence on the Propagation of the Faith, Part I, vol. 6. Printed by the Typographia Polyglotta at Rome, 1894 (page 187).

EXTRACTS AND TRANSLATIONS FROM "NOTICIAS DE CALI

FORNIAS,” ETC.

EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "NOTICIAS DE LA PROVINCIA DE CALIFORNIAS EN TRES CARTAS DE UN SACERDOTE RELIGIOSO HIJO DEL REAL CONVENTO DE PREDICADORES DE VALENCIA A UN AMIGO SUYO. EN VADENCIA POR LOS HERMANOS DE ORGA. MDCCXCIV. CON LAS LICENSIAS NECESARIAS."

Nómina de las misiones fundadas por los padres expulsos, con la expresion del año y de sus bienhechores.

1. Nra. Sra. de Loreto fundada por D. Juan Caballero y Osio

2. San Francisco Xavier, por el mismo

3. Santa Rosalía Molexé, por Don Nicolas de Arteaga.

4. Los Dolores, por su Congregacion de México

5. S. Josef Comundú, por el Marques de Villapuente

6. Nra. Sra. de Guadalupe, por el mismo

7. La Purísima, por el mismo

8. San Luis, por D. Luis Velasco

9. Santiago, por el mismo...

10. S. Ignacio, por el Padre Juan Luyando.

11. S. Josef del Cabo, por el Marques de Villapuente

12. S. Rosa, por Doña Rosa de la Peña...........

13. S. Francisco de Borja, por la Duquesa de Gandia..

Años.

1698

1699

1700

1701

1704

1709

1713

1718

1719

1725

1730

1731

1757

NOTA. Quedaron suprimidas S. Luis y Santa Rosa; pero esta se trasladó á Todos Santos: asimismo se suprimió la de los Dolores, y el principal de la San Josef del Cabo sirvió para la de Santa Gertrudis en el año 1746, y hoy exîste. (Carta Segunda, pp. 48-49.)

EXTRACTS FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "NOVÍSIMA RECOPILACION DE LAS LEYES DE ESPAÑA MANDADA FORMAR POR EL SEÑOR DON CARLOS IV."

LEY III.

D. Carlos III por pragmática-sancion de 2 de Abril de 1767. Extrañamiento de los Regulares de la Compañía de Jesús de todos los dominios de España é Indias; y ocupacion de sus temporalidades. Habiéndome conformado con el parecer de los de mi Consejo Real, en el extraordinario que se celebró con motivo de las resultas de las ocurrencias pasadas en consulta de 29 de Enero de 1767, y de lo que sobre ella, conviniendo en el mismo dictámen, me han exquesto personas del mas elevado carácter y acreditada experiencia; estimulado de gravísimas causas, relativas à la obligacion en que me hallo constituido de mantener en subordinacion, tranquilidad y justica mis pueblos, y otras urgentes, justas y necesarias, que reservo en mi Real ánimo; usando de la suprema autoridad económica que el Todo-poderoso ha depositado en mis manos para la proteccion de mis vasallos, y respeto de mi Corona, he venido en mandar extrañar de todos mis dominios de España é Indias, é islas Filipinas y demas adyacentes, á los Regulares de la Compañía, así Sacerdotes como Coadjutores, ó Legos que hayan hecho la primera profesion, y á los Novicios que quisieren seguirles; y que se ocupen todas las temporalidades de la Compañía en mis dominios: y para la execucion uniforme en todos ellos he dado plena y privativa comision y autoridad por otro mi Real decreto de 27 de Febrero al Presidente del mi Consejo, con facultad de proceder desde luego á tomar las providencias correspondientes.

5. Declaro, que en la ocupacion de temporalidades de la Compañía se comprehenden sus bienes y efectos, así muebles como raices, ó rentas

eclesiásticas que legítimamente posean en el Reyno; sin perjudicio de sus cargas, mente de los fundadores, y alimentos vitalicios de los individuos, que serán de cien pesos durante su vida á los Sacerdotes, y noventa á los Legos, pagaderos de la masa general que se forme de los bienes de la Compañía.

10. Sobre la administracion y aplicaciones equivalentes de los bienes de la Compañía en obras pias, como es dotacior de parroquias pobres, Seminarios concilares, casas de misericordia y otros fines piadosos, oidos los Ordinarios ecliásticos en lo que sea necesario y conveniente, reservo tomar separadamente providencias; sin que en nada se defraude la verdadera piedad, ni perjudique la causa pública ó derecho de tercero.

EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "ACCOUNT OF THE PROVINCE OF THE CALIFORNIAS, IN THREE LETTERS, WRITTEN BY A PRIEST, A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL CONVENT OF PREACHERS OF VALENCIA, TO A FRIEND. PRINTED IN VALENCIA BY DE ORGA BROTHERS. MDCCXCIV. WITH THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY."

List of the missions founded by the banished fathers, with mention of the year and of the benefactors.

1. Our Lady of Loreto, founded by Don Juan Caballero y Osio..

2. San Francisco Xavier, by the same

3. Santa Rosalia Molexé, by Don Nicolas de Arteaga

4. Los Dolores, by the congregation of Mexico ..

5. S. Josef Comundú, by the Marquis de Villapuente.

6. Our Lady of Guadalupe, by the same

7. La Purísima, by the same.

8. San Luis, by D. Luis Velasco.

9. Santiago, by the same..

10. S. Ignacio, by Father Juan Luyando..

11. S. Josef del Cabo, by the Marquis de Villapuente 12. S. Rosa, by Doña Rosa de la Peña...

13. S. Francisco de Borja, by the Duchess of Gandia..

Year.

1698

1699

1700

1701

1704

1709

1713

1718

1719

1725

1730

1731

1757

NOTE. S. Luis and Santa Rosa have been suppressed, but the latter was removed to Todos Santos. Likewise the mission of Los Dolores was suppressed, and the garrison of San Josef del Cabo served for the mission of Santa Gertrudis in the year 1746, and it still exists. (Second letter, pp. 48-49.)

EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "LATEST COMPILATION OF SPANISH LAWS, DIRECTED TO BE MADE BY DON CARLOS IV."

LAW III.

D. Carlos III by royal decree of April 2, 1767:

Banishment of the regulars of the Society of Jesus from all the dominions of Spain and the Indies, and the taking possession of their temporalities.

Being in accord with the views of my royal council in the extraordinary session called as a result of past events, and set forth in the FR 1902, PT 3—29

report of January 29, 1767, and with the opinion which persons of the highest standing and recognized experience have expressed which conform to said report-impelled by gravest motives concerning the duty imposed upon me to maintain my people in peace, tranquillity, and justice and for other urgent, right, and necessary causes, touching which I reserve comment:

In virtue of the supreme economic authority vested in me by the Almighty for the protection of my subjects and to insure the respect due my crown, I have determined to order the banishment from all my dominions in Spain, the Indies, and the Philippines, and other adjacent islands of the Regulars of the Society of Jesus-both priests and lay friars who have taken their first vows, and novitiates who should wish to follow them; and the taking possession of all the temporalities of the society in my dominions.

For the uniform execution of these orders, I have given full and special instructions and powers to the president of my council by another royal decree of the 27th of February, with authority to immediately proceed to take the necessary action.

5. I further direct that the taking possession of the temporalities of the society is to include the effects and property, real and personal, or the ecclesiastical revenues which lawfully belong to it within the Kingdom, without prejudice to the trusts imposed by the founders and to the maintenance of the members, which shall be $100 for the priests during their lifetime and $90 for the lay friars, payable out of the general assets obtained from the property of the society.

*

*

*

*

*

8. With regard to the administration and proper application of the property of the society for pious purposes, such as the endowment of poor parishes, colleges, houses of mercy, and other pious objects, after hearing from the ordinary clergy concerning what may be necessary and proper, I reserve individually the adoption of appropriate measures, without true piety being in any way defrauded or the public cause or rights of third parties being injured.

[Translation.]

Thadeus Amat and others v. Mexico. No. 493.

ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE BEFORE THE HONORABLE UMPIRE.

The present case is of the greatest weight and importance, not only on account of the questions which are raised, but also because of the result which the decision rendered may have for Mexico in the future. The undersigned, feeling sure that the umpire will examine with his accustomed care, and even if it be possible with more diligence, all the circumstances set forth in the papers in the case, does not doubt that he will give to the clear argument of the defense written by Señor Aspiroz all the attention which, under whatever aspect the case be examined, ought not to be refused it by one who is conscientiously to decide the case. (It is the Document No. 46.)

It is pardonable if the agent of Mexico should make an especial recommendation to the umpire asking that he give close attention to the opinion of the Mexican commissioner, since, being called on to settle the difference of opinions of the commissioners, it would be almost an offense to his high sense of justice to suppose that he would not study with particular interest the elements of those opinions.

All the questions of the present case having already been treated with that intelligence and attention with which they have in the argument and brief mentioned, it would be a vain presumption on the part of the undersigned to attempt to say anything whatever new and worthy to be on an equal footing with said works.

But, without any such pretension, and on the contrary, asking indulgence for the plainness of this writing, he, who to-day has the honor to represent the Mexican Government before the Commission, is about to try to make only some observations and a demonstration upon the point of view from which he thinks the case should be considered in conformity with the convention, by virtue of which it has been presented.

I.

In order to form an opinion favorable to the claimants, the commissioner of the United States commences by upholding, or rather by taking for granted, that the fund of the missions of the Californias always had an object exclusively religious and not political in any sense. The contrary is demonstrated with irrefutable historical proofs in the argument of Señor Aspiroz and in the opinion of Señor Zamacona. But, whatever may have been the character of said fund on account of the intentions of the founders, the American commissioner recognizes that since the expulsion of the Jesuits to whom they (the founders) had intrusted the employment of the properties of which there is question here, the sovereign assumed, by virtue of his eminent domain, the powers necessary to accomplish the execution of the wish of those who had created the fund.

Mr. Wadsworth admits not only that the bishop of California, and before him that various religious corporations, and at least one lay corporation, succeeded one another in the management and employment of the fund solely by permission of the National Government, but also the ample power of the said Government to intrust with this management and employment anyone who in its judgment, being trustworthy, was best able to accomplish the ends for which it was instituted.

It appears, nevertheless, that the American commissioner attributes to the appointment of the bishop of California, by the said Government, and on account of the said charge, a permanent effect and the transmission of a perfect and irrevocable right in the bishop and his suc

cessors.

And, as a foundation for such deduction (which is also the foundation of the present claim) he cites the decree of October 24, 1842, which, for that reason, ought to be borne in mind as one of the most important pieces of evidence.

It runs as follows:

That whereas the decree of February 8 of the present year, directing that the administration and care of the Pious Fund of the Californias should redevolve on and continue in the charge of the Government, as had previously been the case, was intended to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and national objects designed