A Forgotten Kingdom: The Spanish Frontier in Colorado and New Mexico, 1540-1821
BLM Cultural Resources Series (Colorado: No. 29)
BLM Logo

Chapter V
Rumors of the French in New Mexico, 1723-1737

In 1723 Juan Domingo de Bustamante took office and promptly issued new orders. He again banned the sale of horses and guns, to Indians and settlers. [1] This suggests that the military of Santa Fe still suffered from inadequate pay, for they sold horses and weapons to raise funds. This problem evidently had not improved since the last petitions for pay were submitted in 1713, 1714 and 1715.

Additionally, the governor certified the number of soldiers at the presidio of Santa Fe at twenty-two men, a decline from the 100 to 150 men listed in 1715. [2] Possibly the figures given in 1715 were for the whole of New Mexico, and included the mozos (small boys who helped the soldiers), volunteers, and local militia. The figure of twenty-two soldiers seems more reasonable, considering Albuquerque had only six military men stationed there. Spanish soldiers in New Mexico probably never exceeded 100 at any one time during this period.

Bustamante also kept busy with criminal cases. In 1723 he supervised proceedings against Martin Hurtado, alcalde mayor of Albuquerque, charged with malfeasance in office. The Hurtado case was alleged misuse of funds, favoritism, and general abuse of authority. [3]

An entrenched bureaucracy developed in New Mexico. Many local officials were elected by their cabildos and were subject to the governor's approval before taking office. In principle this system offered local officials that were elected by those whom they would govern.

The major flaw in this system was that when one governor approved the election of local alcaldes and other officials, they could remain in office for a very long time. Spanish standard colonial policy was a five year term of office for governors. This was an increase of two years over the seventeenth century and was instituted because of the time lag in taking office. In any case, it was thus possible for one governor to approve of the election of local officials and then promptly leave office. The newly appointed man was thus provided with a ready-made local bureaucracy. While this system insured a continuous flow of government, it also bred a group of officials that were hard to eliminate. In no case could a new governor come to New Mexico and make a clean sweep of local officialdom.

Since the governor of New Mexico did not truly control the province and local officials did, each appointee had to get along with these men in order to make his term of office successful. Friction between a new governor and local bureaucrats would surely lead to trouble for the appointee, not some local alcalde. [4]

Where local officials ruled, it was possible to engage in petty venality. On this level extortion, bribery, and favoritism often took place. Generally, bribes took the form of cattle, maize, permission to use someone's land, and sometimes cash. [5] The problem of corruption in office was more prevalent in the pueblos than in Spanish settlements. In the case of pueblo (Spanish) officials, it was easy to browbeat the Indians into submission. There were numerous cases of extortion, forced labor, and the misuse of office in the Indian pueblos while the Spanish settlements saw far less abuse. [6]

It must have been discouraging for a new governor to take office with great plans only to find that he had to face an established, venal bureaucracy that put a damper on his ideas and desires. Probably most men left disillusioned about the possibilities of any real progress. The status quo in New Mexico was maintained by local officials and any hopes for further settlement, economic expansion, and the continued existence of New Mexico as a viable Spanish province rested in their hands.

In 1724 Bustamante faced a major crisis. The problem was not the Indians, but the discovery that New Mexicans were trading with Frenchmen. This was indeed a disturbing development for the government. Testimony indicated that residents of northern New Mexico (Taos) traded with French intruders during the early 1720s. However, the reports also showed that nobody could report actually seeing a Frenchman, casting considerable doubt as to the whereabouts of the intruders. Most probably the goods, without question French, came from the Jicarilla Apache who obtained them from tribes to the east.

The rumors of French in New Mexico were not new. In 1695-1696 there were reports of a French visitation to the pueblo of Pecos. It was reported that "white men" traded with the natives there. [7] An investigation revealed that, if anyone had been at Pecos, they were long gone and nobody could identify them. This information was passed on to Mexico City where it was viewed with alarm, but nothing was done. [8]

The problem of France in the greater southwest began in the late seventeenth century when French explorers pushed southward from Canada. The first major effort at settlement came in 1685 when La Salle attempted to establish a colony along the Texas coast. It was wiped out by Indians and starvation. The disaster that befell La Salle put an end to French expansion until 1699 when Biloxi was founded along the Gulf Coast. In 1702 the French settled on Mobile Bay, whence they moved their capital to Louisiana. French interest in trade with the Spanish and Indians drew them westward during the early eighteenth century. In 1713 Louis Juchereau de Saint-Denis was dispatched to the Red River with trade goods worth several thousand dollars. He founded the town of Natchitoches. In 1714 he set out to trade with Spanish along the lower Rio Grande.

Learning of Saint-Denis' settlement, Spain worried about encroachment on what was traditionally Spanish soil. Since she did not have enough troops to drive out the French, nor could the French force the Spanish to give way, both sides courted the Texas Indians for support. It grew into a clash of systems: the Spanish missions versus France's free trade policy.

Spain in a countermove, occupied Texas in 1716. Once the Spanish settled, missions secured the land against all intruders. In 1716, the year of occupation, San Miguel de Linares was founded. In that year, Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, also in east Texas, was added. Other missions later founded in Texas included La Bahia, San Francisco de los Tejas, and San Antonio de Valero. In 1717 the presidio of San Antonio de Bexar was founded by an expedition led by Martin de Alarcon. This effort resolved questions about Spainish occupation of Texas and her defense of the Texas-Louisiana border.

The French had good reason to risk the dangers of Indians, Spanish, and nature, to reach settled areas like northern New Spain and New Mexico. Since France depended on trade to secure her claims, travel and exchange was of utmost importance. France did not have the population to settle an area as large as Canada and/or the Mississippi Valley, so she had to win the friendship of the natives and to depend upon them to hold the land "in trust" until the nation was ready to settle on a permanent basis. In order to win the Indians over, France found it cheaper and more reliable to trade with them rather than to attempt to settle the natives in villages. In exchange for furs, some minerals, and a few types of wood, the natives received items such as iron goods, blankets, cloth, cheap jewelry, liquor, and sometimes guns.

This policy was diametrically opposed to the Spanish notion of controlling the natives. Spain saw the Indians as childlike creatures that should be taught Christian virtues and that could be organized into permanent settlements in order to become trustworthy citizens of the Spanish Empire. While this system worked for the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, nomadic Texas natives were not about to be settled around missions. It is small wonder that the French were far more popular with the natives of Texas. [9]

The French in Louisiana, and the Illinois country, presented New Mexicans with an attractive alternative to high Spanish prices. Why pay exorbitant prices to the merchants of Seville and Cadiz when one could buy quality French linens, ironware, or guns at much lower prices? Even with the costs of importing both French and English goods into Canada, transporting them down the Mississippi and then moving them overland to Santa Fe, goods were still cheaper than from Spanish sellers.

It is no wonder that the New Mexican populace was interested in reported French settlements to the east. An enterprising soul like Saint-Denis could make fine profits by finding his way overland to New Mexico. To be sure, dangers abounded. French traders not only had to run the risk of interception by Spanish troops in Texas, but they also faced plains Indians, like the surly Comanche, who resented any intrusion onto their land. Fortunately, French traders had an engaging air about them and were generally able to win the Indians' friendship. Rarely were Frenchmen molested, especially when they explained to the natives what they were doing to the Spanish.

While New Mexicans thought that French trading would be a boon, Spanish officials were far less enthusiastic. Since it was illegal to deal with French traders there were efforts at stopping the trade. However, it amounted to naught, for despite the efforts to prevent interchange, there were always New Mexican citizens who were willing to risk jail for cheap goods. [10] The actual incidence of intrusion was quite low but any time a threat of foreign trade existed, officials in Mexico City became nervous and these fears were transmitted to the government of New Mexico.

New rumors of the French in the trans-Mississippi west arose once again in 1719. At the same time Governor Antonio Valverde was ordered by the viceroy to prepare an expedition to punish some Comanche who raided near Taos, to reestablish the presidio at El Cuartelejo, and finally to look for "white men" presumed to be French.

Valverde assigned the task to his lieutenant governor, Pedro de Villasur, who, with a command of forty-two Spanish soldiers, three settlers, and sixty Indian allies set out in June, 1720. Also included in the expedition was a Frenchman, Jean l'Archeveque, a survivor of the La Salle expedition, who had since cast his fortunes with the Spanish. [11]

By August, 1720 the group reached the South Platte River, having marched across eastern Colorado. Here they sighted a Pawnee encampment. The Spanish camped nearby and tried to talk with the Indians. In the ensuing conversations, they learned that Europeans were living in the Pawnee village. The Spanish wrote to them in French, but got no reply. Meanwhile the Pawnee stampeded the New Mexican's livestock and attacked their camp site. They killed all but thirteen Spaniards and twelve Indians. The badly mauled expedition fled back to Santa Fe, arriving there on September 6, 1720. [12]

In 1724 the French were again rumored to be in northeastern New Mexico with their goods. Bustamante was forced to make some rapid decisions regarding the dangers of illegal trade. The governor, in testimony given during 1724, noted that illegal trade with the French took place from New Mexico and that those responsible violated Spanish law. Without naming names, Bustamante said that this trade had to be stopped before the French gained a foothold in the Texas-New Mexico area and, in order to stop it, all loyal Spaniards must be on the alert against French traders. In the testimony, he concluded that no major violations had taken place, but that, in the future, traders who wandered into New Mexico would be picked up and brought to Santa Fe for immediate interrogation. The governor again stated that all trade between foreigners and New Mexicans must stop. [13] Bustamante further noted that he was going to deliver his report to the viceroy and that the information contained in it would be bad news for those who traded illegally.

A further development occurred in 1727 when the viceroy requested that the details of the Villasur massacre be sent to him. He also asked that the status of foreign intrusions be noted. Bustamante notified the viceroy that Frenchmen had been spotted at El Cuartelejo and Chinali, the latter a mere 160 leagues from Santa Fe. The governor then asked for more troops from New Spain "in order to launch an expedition to determine the whereabouts of these foreigners." [14] The viceroy, always interested in conserving royal funds, decided that any needed information could be obtained from Jicarilla Apache who frequented the region. [15]

Prior to 1740 only one French party actually found its way into Santa Fe. In 1739 Pierre and Paul Mallet, from Ilinois, arrived in New Mexico where they were well-treated and then allowed to return to the Mississippi River country. The Mallet expedition was purely for trade. The good treatment of these men was unusual. Normally, they would be sent south to New Spain and then deported to France or Spain. [16]

The late 1740s saw the arrival of more French traders in Santa Fe. They were quickly captured, relieved of their goods, and sent south to be questioned. In many ways, the Bustamante Testimonio of 1724 shows that there was indeed a trade with someone and not much could be done about it. The kind treatment of the Mallet brothers in 1739 makes one think that the Spanish did not consider them a threat. While there were early rumors about the French, the Mallet party was the first incursion actually into the area. One also has to wonder if the New Mexican governors tried to use the French scare to apply pressure on Mexico City. By raising the cry of French intrusion, the viceroy might be forced to provide more troops and funds for the defense of New Mexico. If indeed the scare was a ruse, officials in Mexico City saw through it and refused to send more aid without living Frenchmen as proof. Sadly, Governor Bustamante was one of the victims of the "French scare". Soon after he left office in 1731 his residencia was held and the former governor was found guilty of permitting trade with the French, [whose existence was never proved]. The Villasur disaster also led to a major investigation. The government decided to reconsider its position on the plains, especially the value of hunting for phantom Frenchmen. After having had one expedition quite literally wiped out, it was small wonder that the viceroy hesitated to send out any more. Bustamantes' cries went unheeded; the risk was not equal to the danger. [17]

In the wake of the Villasur disaster, Mexico City sent an inspector to the frontier to determine what problems the New Mexicans faced and how the situation was handled. Pedro de Rivera, dispatched in 1724, arrived in New Mexico during 1727. The Brigadier inspected New Mexican defenses and, in an effort to cut costs, proposed several plans, that while money saving, were totally impractical for New Mexico.

Rivera also toured Texas and northern New Spain, which took three years. In a major effort to bring information back to the viceroy, Rivera travelled into all corners of the empire. In general, the Rivera inspection was of little use in New Mexico for he was unfamiliar with the area, and therefore could not make appropriate recommendations. [18]

Among the things that Rivera decided against was the establishment of a new presidio among the Jicarilla Apache. [19] The Jicarilla were valuable allies of the Spanish living in the northeastern sector of the province. They were a semi-Christianized nomadic tribe who early on became friends of the Spanish. The Jicarillas were the first Apache group with such status. The Carlanas also were sometimes friendly, but they could not always be trusted. The Jicarillas were supposed to have been protected by the Spanish since they were the main buffer between the Pueblo tribes of the river valleys and the hostile Comanche to the east. The New Mexicans, trying to protect Jicarilla villages from raids by the Comanche, requested a presidio.

The viceroy did grant permission for a presidio, but the plan was short-lived because in 1727 Rivera suggested that the Jicarilla be encouraged to migrate to Taos, where they could settle. Afraid to mix Apaches with the Pueblo natives, and not liking the idea of "non-Christian" Indians living so close to Spanish settlements such as Santa Cruz and Santa Fe, the idea was quickly vetoed. This impasse resulted in the Jicarilla being absorbed by the Comanche and Ute, leaving northeastern New Mexico without a buffer. Hence, New Mexico was thwarted by a man who knew little of the actual conditions of the frontier and who, to save a little money, was willing to ignore Bustamante's pleas that the Jicarilla should be protected. [20]

The threat of Comanche raiders was the most serious Indian problem New Mexico faced after 1720. The Comanche edged slowly toward eastern New Mexico. These plains dwellers created the so-called "Comanche Barrier" between New Mexico and the Missouri River, which was a key reason more Frenchmen did not come into New Mexico.

In 1724 Governor Bustamante held a junta de guerra to discuss the possibility of organizing an expedition against the Comanche who continued to raid Jicarilla lands. In that year the Comanche had forced the Jicarilla to give up half their women and children, and then they burned several villages, killing all but sixty-nine men, two women, and three boys. [21] In response Juan Paez Hurtado was ordered to get together an expedition of 100 men. [22] No doubt the Spanish were unable to find and engage the elusive Comanche, so that this expedition probably ended as had so many other efforts at Indian control.

Visitadores were not the only officials to come to New Mexico. Every few years the Church sent a visitador into the province to check on the performance of Franciscan friars in New Mexico. In 1730 the Bishop of Durango, Fray Benito Crespo, visited New Mexico and reported on conditions. In his report to Viceroy Marques de Casafuerte, he found that the Province lacked seven priests for the missions. Some forty were authorized. He also noted that the land: "where there is so much grain which fails to bear fruit for lack of cultivation, can be increased", (with the addition of just a few friars). [23] He described the various settlements of noting mainly their churches and the number of padres available to serve each town. Santa Fe, Crespo stated, had a good church, paid for by the people of that town, and the priest was well provided for. Santa Cruz had a church, built by the Spanish, but no resident priest. Since the same situation also existed in Albuquerque, Crespo recommended that priests be placed in each Spanish settlement. [24]

Crespo's descriptions of the Indian pueblos are more complete. He provided population figures in addition to an analysis of the needs presented by the citizens of each pueblo. Crespo concluded that in Tesuque, Nambe, and Pojoaque 440 persons were served by a priest residing in Nanbe or Tesuque. In San Juan (de los Caballeros) 300 persons resided, San Ildefonso had 296 residents, and Santa Clara 279; all three were served by the head mission at San Ildefonso. [25] The pueblos of Taos and Picuris had total populations of 732; Crespo suggested that one friar might handle them. He also said that if a friar were stationed at Taos, the "last one [town] of Christianity," he could minister to the Jicarilla at El Cuartelejo, "fifteen or twenty leagues away." [26]

Other pueblos that Crespo visited included Santa Cruz where he noted it was "very fertile for grains." He gave no population figures for this area. However he noted that Pecos had 521 people, Galisteo numbered 188, and Jemez 307 contained souls. Zia's population was 318; Cochiti had 372, Santo Domingo, 281; and San Felipe, 234. The Bishop further noted that the pueblos of Zuñi and Acoma had 860 and 600 residents respectively. Laguna numbered 400 strong. One friar was in charge of the missions at Acoma, Laguna, and Zuñi. [27]

The Bishop concluded his report by stating that he felt the Navajo showed signs of willingness to be converted because they: "plant and because of their great worship of the holy [cross] which they keep in their homes like the Jicarillas..." [28] Crespo then recommended that missions be placed among the Jicarilla and the Navajo, pointing out that this would cost very little and would provide a border defense system. Converting the Navajo would be easy because they already traded with the Pueblos and could also be easily reached. Crespo also told the viceroy that to provide missionaries from the north rather than from the south of New Spain would be easier and cheaper. [29]

Crespo made mention of El Paso del Norte. He noted that the Catholic church would build a facility there if a priest were provided. In addition, some 900 Indians had no priest working among them. Crespo recommended that they be provided with one missionary. He told the Cassfuerte that: "for five years the five or six missions of the north at the Junta de los Rios [at the Rio Grande and the Rio Concho], also belonging to this Custody, have been without ministers." [30]

In addition to the Rivera and Crespo visits, the ongoing French threat, and concerns about the defense of the Jicarilla Apache, Bustamante's administration also faced most of the same problems that burdened his predecessors. He ordered that trade with unchristianized Indians be stopped and that the Spanish leave the Indians at Pecos pueblo alone. Of course, he had to deal with the normal court cases, both civil and criminal.

The governor also had matters from Spain to consider. In 1724 he ordered the publication of a royal cedula explaining that King Philip V had abdicated in favor of his son Louis. [31] In 1725 he notified the public that King Louis I had died on August 31, 1724. Later that same year Bustamante published a decree that Philip V had restored himself to the throne. [32]

Bustamante organized only one Indian campaign, that of 1723, and it proved a total failure. He faced difficulties with the Indians in other ways too; dealing with Indian crimes, like murder and theft. [33] There seems, however, to have been less activity in the criminal courts than prior to 1722. The number of cases dealing with Spaniards also declined during this period. The number of civil cases remained about the same.

Bustamante's term, though interesting, was not as dynamic as might have been expected. There was little trouble among officials in although the cabildo of Santa Fe suffered from internal difficulties. Rivera discovered this during his visit to Santa Fe and reported that, due to irregularities in elections, there was some dissension among the members of the cabildo. [34] When the viceroy received Rivera's report on the cabildo situation, he ordered changes in election procedures to guarantee a more representative council and to do away with the entrenched members of the old cabildo. [35]

On the whole, Bustamante did little more than hold New Mexico for Spain. He initated no new expansion, yet he did manage to secure a shaky peace with the Apache and Comanche. The Rivera visit had a good deal to do with this inactivity. Rivera vetoed nearly everything the governor proposed for the defense of New Mexico. Bustamante tried scare tactics to force the viceroy to hand over more funds and soldiers, but he failed. With Spain at war with France in Europe all the Americas suffered from lack of funds and soldiers. Understandably New Mexico, the most remote part of New Spain, received little attention. Even the Rivera visit was one of retrenchment, not one of dynamic expansion.

Bustamante's term of office expired in 1731, and Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora was appointed to succeed him. The new governor, facing an upcoming Indian campaign against the Apache, ordered a junta de guerra to discuss the matter.

In 1732 he ordered that gambling, drinking, and prostitution be forbidden in Indian pueblos. [36] At the same time he ordered published a bando [edict] against idleness and vagrancy within the confines of the province. [37] A little later he ordered the settlers of Santa Cruz to take better care of their stock, noting that loose animals were a temptation for raiding Indians. [38] Other orders included notification that an escort for those wishing to leave New Mexico would depart from Albuquerque for El Paso on November 1st. [39] Further edicts said a crossing must be established on the Rio Chama near the pueblo of Chama. [40] His final order during 1732 prohibited the sale of Apache captives to Pueblo Indians. The governor issued this order in response to the fact that the Apache campaign had brought about the capture of some natives who were sold into slavery, a tradition that continued into the 1860s. [41]

That moderate economic growth occurred in New Mexico during the 1730s is seen in the fact that numerous cases dealt with cattle and land. [42] Albuquerque showed signs of expansion when Cristoval Garcia petitioned the governor for permission to build an acequia (water ditch) through the town to help water the desertlike lands around it. [43] The residents of that town objected to Garcia crossing their lands, and eight signatures on two petitions indicated that they did not want the ditch. Governor Cruzat ruled that if Garcia agreed to respect the rights of landowners, he would be permitted to build the acequia. [44]

Other economic indicators include a petition from the citizens of Santa Cruz to build a new church to replace the smaller, older structure. Obviously, that city was wealthy enough to provide the funds for such construction and the petition was granted. [45]

On June 23, 1733, Cruzat ordered that all citizens of New Mexico be ready to pass muster, indicating again that the defense of New Mexico was uppermost. [46] Further indication of this concern was found in 1734 when Juan Paez Hurtado held a junta de guerra at Albuquerque to discuss a possible Apache campaign. However, nothing came of this proposal. [47]

It is significant that within a period of two years three cases of malfeasance in office occurred, involving three different pueblo alcaldes. The last such case happened in the early years of the eighteenth century.

Governor Cruzat had to face several such cases during his term. In 1733 proceedings were held against Ramon Garcia Jurado, alcalde of Bernalillo (Sandia) was charged with extortion against the Indians of Zia, Jemez, and Santa Ana. He was also alleged to have used these Pueblo Indians for forced labor. These were serious allegations, because they upset the balance of trust and friendship between Spaniard and native. Garcia Jurado was found guilty and dismissed from office. [48]

In 1733 another complaint against a local official was filed at Acoma. Here Bernabe Baca, alcalde mayor of Laguna and Acoma, was accused of a number of felonies, including extortion, false taxation, and the misuse of natives in these pueblos. Found guilty, he was dismissed and fined. [49] In 1735 lieutenant alcalde Diego de Torres of Chama was accused by Juan Garcia de la Mora of illegally trading with the Comanches. Torres was found guilty of all charges and fined ten pesos plus he made a substantial contribution to the local church fund. [50]

It seems that with the restoration of Spain's power in New Mexico and a growing confidence by local alcaldes, abuses were bound to occur despite warnings from the central government that the Indians must be left strictly alone. No serious Indian troubles occurred for a number of years. Local officials took the situation for granted. They found to their dismay that the natives were not afraid to report abuses to Santa Fe. The natives realized that Santa Fe would not tolerate actions endangering the Spanish position in New Mexico and therefore they were willing to turn in miscreant officials. This shows that the Indians of the pueblos were by no means completely cowed by local officials.

Governor Cruzat's administration lasted five years and was unable to accomplish much. A mission to serve the Jicarillas was founded in 1733 at Las Trampas, about five leagues from Taos. It was directed by Father Mirabal. Other than the one small campaign against the Apache, the Cruzat government was, at best, dull. In 1735 when Cruzat's term expired, he was replaced by a new royal appointee, Henrique de Olavide y Michelena, whose office ended in 1739. As in the past, Olavide began his administration with a flurry of orders and commands designed to improve the quality of New Mexico.

The years from 1722 through 1735 were relatively quiet. No major Indian scares occured. Local natives remained peaceful. The French fright of the mid-1720s was the most important event of the period. New Mexico continued to grow slowly, as indicated in the Crespo report of 1730. The governors' various commands against vices such as gambling, prostitution, and idleness were nothing new and they were duly ignored. The new governor had his work cut out for him.


1 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, Order prohibiting the sale of guns and horses by the soldiers of Santa Fe, April 3, 1723, at Santa Fe in SANM.

2 Certification of soldiers at presidio of Santa Fe, March 2, 1723, at Santa Fe in SANM.

3 Proceedings against Martin Hurtado, former alcalde of Albuquerque, February 22, 1723, at Santa Fe in SANM. Other examples of abuse of office include a petition from the Indians of San Juan Pueblo against Roque Madrid for extortion and abuse of native labor. See: Petition of Indians of San Juan Pueblo to Marques de la Peñuela, December 29, 1707, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

4 For a complete description of New Mexican government, see: Marc Simmons, Spanish Government in New Mexico.

5 For example, Criminal proceedings against Baltasar and Bernabe Baca for disobeying order of the governor regarding employment of natives, August 2-September 8, 1752, at Albuquerque, in SANM.

6 For example, Proceedings against Ramon Garcia Jurado, alcalde mayor of Bernalillo (Sandia) for forced labor and other extortions against Pueblo Indians at Zia, Jemez, and Santa Ana, April 6-January 6, 1723, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

7 Fray Diego Zeinos of the Pecos Mission reported these rumors to Vargas in 1695. See: Fray Diego Zeinos to Vargas, October 27, 1695, at Pecos in SANM. Herbert E. Bolton also alludes to this event in "Defensive Spanish Expansion and the Significance of the Borderlands," in: The Trans-Mississippi West (Boulder, Colorado, 1930), p. 31.

8 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, Testimonio. Testimony taken in regard to illicit trade with French, April 19-May 4, 1724 at Santa Fe, in SANM.

9 An excellent description of French settlement in Louisiana and Texas can be found in: John F. Bannon, The Spanish Borderlands Frontier. 1513-1821, pp. 108-124. See also: Herbert E. Bolton, Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century (Austin, 1970); and Thomas P. O'Rourke, The Franciscan Missions in Texas, 1690-1793, (Washington, 1927). For a description of a west Texas mission, see: Robert S. Weddle, The San Saba Mission: Spanish Pivot in Texas (Austin, 1964).

10 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, Testimony taken regarding the illicit trade with the French, April 19-May 4, 1724, at Santa Fe in SANM. This testimony shows that many New Mexicans traded willingly with the French and that they found such a trade profitable.

11 Alfred B. Thomas, "The Massacre of the Villasur Expedition at the Forks of the Platte River," Nebraska History Magazine. VII (July-September, 1924), 67-81. See also: Gunnerson, (1988).

12 Ibid., pp. 80-81.

13 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, Testimony regarding the presence of French trade in New Mexico, April 19-May 4, 1724, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

14 Marques de Casafuerte, decrees and decisions regarding the Villasur expedition (1719), May 29, 1727, at Mexico City, in SANM.

15 Ibid.

16 See: Bolton, "French Intrusions into New Mexico, 1749-1752."

17 Marques de Casafuerte, decrees and decisions regarding the Villasur expedition against the French and Pawnee, May 29, 1727, at Mexico City, in SANM.

18 See: Retta Murphy, "The Journey of Pedro Rivera, 1724-1728," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLI (October, 1937), 125-141.

19 Juan Miguel Enriques, Certification of viceregal order of September 17, 1723, authorizing the location of a presidio among the Jicarilla Apache, November 8, 1723, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

20 The entire Rivera report is contained in Vito Alessio Robles, Diario y derroteo de lo caminado visto y observado en la visita que hizo a los presidios de Nueva Espana septentrional el Brigadier Pedro de Rivera, (Mexico, 1946).

21 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, junta de guerra to discuss campaign against Comanche for attacks upon Jicarilla settlements, February 2-8, 1724, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

22 Ibid.

23 Adams, Bishop Tamaron's Visitation, pp. 95-96. The Crespo Report is found in the Appendix.

24 Ibid, p. 96.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., pp. 96-97.

27 Ibid., pp. 97-98.

28 Ibid., p. 98.

29 Ibid., pp. 98-99.

30 Ibid., p. 99.

31 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, Order for publication of enclosed royal cedula announcing abdication of Felipe V in favor of his son Luis, September 3, 1724, at Madrid and Santa Fe, in SANM.

32 Joseph Ygnacio de la Plaza, alcalde, publication of royal cedula announcing death of Luis I, June 22, 1725, at Albuquerque, and Bustamante, Order for publication of decree announcing the resumption of the throne by Felipe V, July 12, 1725, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

33 Proceedings against Indian of San Ildefonso, August 23 - December 7, 1725, at Santa Fe, also notebook of criminal proceedings, June 9 - August 1, 1728, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

34 Cabildo of Santa Fe to visitador general [Rivera], July 7, 1724, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

35 Juan Domingo de Bustamante, certification of viceregal orders regarding the election of the Santa Fe cabildo, March 8, 1727, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

36 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Order prohibiting gambling in Indian pueblos, March 16, 1732, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

37 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Order against idleness and vagrancy, March 16, 1732, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

38 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Order to Santa Cruz settlers to take better care of their livestock, June 1, 1723, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

39 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Notice that escort would leave Albuquerque on November 1, October 12, 1732, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

40 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Order to establish crossing on Rio Chama, October 18, 1732, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

41 Gervasio Cruzat y Gongora, Order forbidding sale of Apache captives, December 6, 1732, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

42 For instance, Luis Romero vs. Ambrosio de Villalpondo, March 7-11, 1732, at Santa Fe and Francisca Real Aguilar vs. Joseph Lujan regarding payment of debts, April 21-May 2, 1733, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

43 Petition of Cristoval Garcia to build an acequia. August 19-November 12, 1732, at Albuquerque, in SANM.

44 Complaint of citizens of Albuquerque against Cristoval Garcia, January 7-February 9, 1733, at Albuquerque and Santa Fe, in SANM.

45 Petition by citizens of Santa Cruz to build a new church, June 15-21, 1733, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

46 Order of Cruzat y Gongora for all citizens to be prepared to pass muster, June 23, 1733, at Santa Fe, in SANM.

47 Juan Paez Hurtado, Proceedings in junta, January 29, 1733 and Cruzat y Gongora to Hurtado regarding proposed campaign, January 31, 1733 at Santa Fe, in SANM.

48 Proceedings against Ramon Garcia Jurado, alcalde mayor of Bernalillo, April 6, 1732-January 6, 1733, at Bernalillo, in SANM.

49 Proceedings against Bernabe Baca, alcalde mayor of Laguna and Acoma, December 21, 1733-January 26, 1734, at Acoma and Santa Fe, in SANM.

50 Proceedings against Diego de Torres, of Chama, April 13-May 16, 1735, at Chama and Santa Fe, in SANM.

<<< Previous <<< Contents>>> Next >>>

Last Updated: 20-Nov-2008