Argote, Pedro Marin
New Orleans, (Louisiana)
Proceedings carried out by Don Pedro Marin Argote, postmaster general of this province in order to demand some slaves that are listed in the inventory of the goods of Father Antonio de Sedella, O.M.Cap.
--------
1792 May 21
Argote, Pedro Marin
New Orleans, (Louisiana)
to Dr. Teodoro Tirso Henriquez
(New Orleans)
Don Pedro Marin Argote, manager of the Royal Rent of the post-offices of Louisiana, handed in a written petition, soliciting the delivery of four slaves to Dr. Teodoro Tirso Enrique Henriquez, Vicar Forane and Ecclesiastical Judge of Louisiana. Argote states in the petition the following: 1. Facts: a) That he bought by public contract of Feb. 13, 1790, four slaves from Father Antonio de Sedella. b) That, however, the slaves remained at the service of Father Sedella, who paid to Marin the proper rent. c) That when Father Sedella had forcibly to leave New Orleans, the slaves were considered as his property and were thereby inventorised. 2. That as soon as he knew that the slaves had been inventorised among the goods of Father Sedella, he demanded their delivery to the auxiliary Bishop, Fray Cirilo de Barcelona, who did not accede to the petition because he had already notified the king of what had been done. 3. a.) That as soon as Doctor Teodoro Tirso Henriquez arrived at New Orleans to take charge of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Louisiana and especially to find out the affairs concerning Father Sedella, Argote solicited personally of him the delivery of the four slaves: Babe, a negro woman and her children, Honorio, Antonio, and Teresa. b.) That, on this occasion, he presented the documents on which he founded his right and said that he would present a written demand if his demands were not acceded to. c.) That Dr. Henriquez assented that the documents were sufficient titles and that there was no need of a written demand. Moreover, Dr. Henriquez guaranteed that he would take the verbal demand into account, and give the slaves back as soon as he was acquainted with Father Sedella's affairs. 4. That since the day of the last verbal demand until today, three months have passed and the slaves have not been delivered. So that Argote recurs again to Doctor Henriquez, but now in the due form, with a written demand, to which he now adds the document concerning the purchase of the slaves. 5. In this petition Argote demands: a. the delivery of the four slaves. b. the paying of the rent of the slaves since the month of May, because since then he has been dispossessed of the slaves. c. the payment of charges for damages and prejudices. d. finally, he wishes that he preserve for himself the right to recur to the superior tribunal, paying the expenses. 6. Finally, Marin specifies that he is enclosing two copies of the contract to be corrected and adjusted by the notary: Then one of them is to be given back to him and a certified copy of what may be ordered is to be drawn up on it. ... To this is added a decree by Dr. Henriquez that the petition has been presented, and respecting the additional clause as it is asked. ... To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that, on May 21, 1732, he notified Pedro Marin Argote of the above decree. ... To this another note is added by Quinones certifying that the above decree was copied on the duplicate presented by Pedro Marin Argote. ... To this is added a copy of the contract.
--------
1790 Feb. 13
Pedesclaux, Pedro, Notary Public
(New Orleans)
Pedesclaux certifies:
1. That there appeared before him, Fr. Antonio Sedella, pastor of the parochial church of New Orleans, as seller, and Pedro Maria Argote, general manager of the post-office of the same city as buyer. 2. That Sedella is the master of a negro woman, named Babe, who has three children: Honorio, Antonio and Theresa. That he bought Babe with her son Honorio from Francis de Priano by the public contract of Aug. 4, 1784, before the Notary Public, Rafael Perdomo. The two others were born at Father Sedella's. 3. That Sedella sells the four slaves in so far as they are slaves with all the defects, vices, and diseases they may have, except what is prevented by law, as free from charges and mortgages. 4. That the price is 1,300 "pesos," the amount of which Sedella received in cash from Pedro Marin Argote. However, since the delivery of the mentioned amount does not take place in this act, Father Sedella renounces to the exception "non mumerata pecunia," declaring formal receipt of the sum above. 5. That Pedro Marin Argote declared that he accepted the purchase of the slaves for the price and other requisites already mentioned. Moreover, he declared formal receipt of the slaves. 6. That Pedesclaux knows the contractors who signed the document, being witnesses to this act: Luis Liautau, Fernando Ibanez, and Tomas Gracia, all neighbours of New Orleans. Signed by Antonio de Sedella and Pedro Marin Argote and notarised by Pedro Pedesclaux. ... To this is added a note by Pedro Pedesclaux certifying, on Jan. 7, 1791, that the above copy was drawn up according to the original. ... To this is added a decree, on May 22, 1792, by Henriquez that the notary is to leave in writing a testimony of the item 72 of the inventory of Father Sedella's goods that is in the Archives of the vicarship of New Orleans, and was carried out by order of Cirilo de Barcelona, Bishop of Tricaly when Sedella had to leave for Spain. Signed by Henriquez and certified by Quinones. ... To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that he notified Pedro Marin Argote of the above decree. ... To this is added a testimony of the item 72 of Father Sedella's inventory: 1. Bishop Cirilo de Barcelonia found at Father Sedella's when this left for Spain a Negro woman, named Babe with four children: Honorio, Antonio, Teresa and Celestina, the latter having been born during Father Sedella's absence. 2. Bishop Cirilo believing that these negroes belonged to Father Sedella, took them over and notified the King, who, in a royal order, ordered him to keep them until it was otherwise disposed. 3. this item has been copied, in virtue of the above decree, and it is found in the Vicarship of New Orleans. This is certified by Estevan de Quinones, Notary Public.
--------
1792 May 25
Henriquez, Doctor Teodoro Tirso
(New Orleans)
Henriquez decrees:
1. That when Father Sedella left for Spain there were among his goods
four slaves whom Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona took over, having notified
the King thereabout. The King in a royal Order ordered him to keep
them until it was otherwise disposed.
2. That as the decision of His Majesty is still pending, the cause
cannot be pursued. This decision of not pursuing, was already
expressed to Pedro Marin Argote, in the verbal judgement that he
interposed before the tribunal.
3. Finally, that Argote is to be notified of the present decree and
that he will not be heard thenceforth because of the respect due to His
Majesty's orders. Signed by Dr. Henriquez and certified by Quinones.
... To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that he notified
Pedro Marin Argote of the above decree.
--------
1792 Jun. 5
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Dr. Teodoro Tirso Henriquez
(New Orleans)
1. Argote lists the preceding happenings and protests against the
damages and prejudices incurred because the mentioned slaves, of which
he is illegally deprived, have not been given back yet.
2. He refers to the last decree which ordered him not to continue in
his solicitations because he will not be heard.
3. Argote stresses that a testimony is to be included in the
proceedings of the Royal Order, and in the case that it may not be
suitable to draw up a copy of it, its existence is to be testified in a
suitable form.
4. Furthermore, Argote asks: a) that a description of the head and
foot of the inventory be written down to verify the preceding item. b)
that all documents about the delivery of the slaves be filed in one
process. Argote specifies that he started the procedures on May 27,
1790. In the case that the filing of the documents may not be allowed,
Argote asks the Notary to notify him of their whereabouts. c) That he
is including a copy of the present document in order that it, after
being corrected and adjusted by the Notary, be given back with a
certification of what was decided by the Tribunal. ... To this is added
a decree by Henriquez, on June 6, 1792, ordering the above document to
be added to the proceedings. ... Signed by Henriquez ... To this is
added a note by Quinones certifying that, on the same day, he notified
Argote of the above decree.
--------
1792 Jun. 8
Henriquez, Teodoro Tirso
(New Orleans)
Henriquez states:
1. That the Royal Order, the judicial notice of which Argote demands,
is not in the Vicarship.
2. That the order of not pursuing the cause is sufficiently founded
on the word of Fray Cirilo de Barcelona, who stated that he has both
the Royal Order and the proceedings concerning the goods of
Sedella.
3. That in the item 2, the head and foot of the inventory will be
written down,
4. That if Argote is not satisfied, he is allowed recurrence to the
corresponding Tribunal and that all testimonies he may need will be
given. Signed by Henriquez and certified by Quinones.
... To this is added a copy of the head and foot of the inventory:
--------
1792 Jan. 30
Quinones, Estevan de
(New Orleans)
Quinones certifies to:
1. Head of inventory, that thence appeared before him: a) Dr.
Teodoro Henriquez and b) Father Ignacio de Olot, Capuchin and pro-
secretary of the Auxiliary Bishop, Fray Cirilo de Barcelona. c) That
by order of Fray Cirilo de Barcelona they delivered the goods and
various documents he had and that belonged to Fathers Antonio de
Sedella and Jose Xerez, according to the following inventory:
2. Foot of the inventory: All these goods are considered as received
and all the proceedings are to be put in the Archives of this
Vicarship. Signed by Dr. Henriquez and certified by Estevan de
Quinones.
--------
1792 Jun. 8
Quinones, Estevan de
(New Orleans)
Quinones certifies:
1) That, as stated in the above decree, the Royal Order is not in the
Archives of the Vicarship of New Orleans.
2) That Argote presented himself before Fray Cirilo de Barcelona,
soliciting the delivery of the four slaves.
3) That there is no testimony in the Archives of the other
proceedings carried out by Argote in defense of his rights. Signed by
Estevan de Quinones.
---To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that the decision of
the above was written down in the copy presented by Pedro Marin
Argote.
--------
1792 Jun. 12
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Teodoro Tirso Henriquez
(New Orleans)
1) Argote states: What is already known ... that he demanded the
delivery of a negro woman and her children, whom he bought from
Sedella.
2) That, since some documents have been added to the procedures that
might agree with his defense, he asks their delivery. Signed by Pedro
Marin Argote.
--------
1792 Jun. 12
Henriquez, Dr. Teodoro Tirso
(New Orleans)
Henriquez decrees:
1) That Marin Argote has to have recourse to the Superior Tribunal of
the Bishop of Cuba.
2) That the original documents must be taken to the Superior
Tribunal, and a copy of them, corrected and adjusted, is to be kept in
the Vicarship.
3) The taxing judge of the Tribunal is appointed to fix the costs,
according to the Synod of the Bishop of Havana. Signed by Dr.
Henriquez.
--- To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that, on June 12,
1792, he notified Argote of the above decree.
---To this is added another note by Quinones certifying that, on the
same day, he notified Luis Liotand, taxing judge, of the above decree,
and that he accepted it and swore to carry it out faithfully.
--------
1792 Jun. 15
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Teodoro Tirso Henriquez
(New Orleans)
1) Marin Argote puts forth a summary of all his defenses: a) on May
27, 1790, he began his defense before the Auxiliary Bishop, Fr. Cirilo
de Barcelona. b) Afterwards he continued his defense before the
Ecclesiastical Judge, Henriquez. He ordered officially that a copy of
the item of the inventory should be drawn up, by which Fray Cirilo de
Barcelona delivered to Dr. Henriquez the goods that belonged to Father
Sedella. c) In the mentioned item it is said that Fray Cirilo de
Barcelona found the slaves at Father Sedella's and believing they
belonged to the latter, took them over, notifying the King thereof, who
by a Royal Order determined that Fray Cirilo should keep the slaves
until otherwise disposed. d) On May 25, 1795, Dr. Henriquez, basing
his decision on the item of the inventory and on the circumstance that
the royal decision was pending, decreed that Marin should not pursue
his petition.
2) The main foundation of the decision of May 25, 1792, is the Royal
Order to which alludes the item of the inventory. However, Argote
states that he cannot obey blindly this Royal mandate, unless he sees
it or the Tribunal assures its existence.
3) On June 5, 1792, Argote asked again that they make evident, in a
form worthy of credit, the existence of the Royal decree. Besides, he
asked that the head and foot of the inventory should be copied in the
procedures.
4) Moreover, it was affirmed for certain in the proceedings: a) That
the mentioned Royal Order does not exist nor has anyone seen it. b)
Neither are in the Vicarship the procedures formerly carried out by
Argote. c) That the Notary has added to the proceedings a testimony
of the head and foot of the inventory, which was drawn up on Jan. 30,
1792 by authorization of Ignatius Olot as pro-secretary of Bishop
Cirilo de Barcelona.
5) Despite all that has been stated above, Henriquez stated that the
word of Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona was sufficient when he assured them
he had the Royal decree. Therefore Dr. Henriquez decreed that Argote
should not pursue his demands.
6) Argote states that on the 11th instant he went to Quinones' to
deliver a note of about 8 lines in order that the Notary himself might
take it to the court. Since Quinones was absent, Argote thought he
might be at Dr. Henriquez's, so that he went there. Dr. Henriquez
received him with the temper rather disturbed and told him not to tire
himself that the proceedings would not at all be delivered to him, and
that, even not having seen the Royal Decree, the word of Bishop Cirilo
de Barcelona was sufficient. Henriquez, however, ordered that all the
testimonies Argote might need should be given him to appeal to the
Superior Tribunal.
7) Effectively, Dr. Henriquez in his decree of June 12, of the
present year, ordered that the original proceedings should be handed
over to Argote to appeal to the Superior Tribunal, and that a copy of
them was to be left in the Archives of the Vicarship.
8) Hitherto, Argote has but made a summary exposition of all that has
taken place in the present process. Despite the last decree, the
original proceedings have not been delivered to him yet. fortunately,
Argote had authorized copies of the main documents of the process so
that by means of them he has recurred to the Superior Tribunal.
9) Marin Argote stresses again: a.) That the demand began before the
auxiliary Bishop, Cirilo de Barcelona. b.) That the word of Bishop
Cirilo that he has the Royal Decree will not be given credit until it
is seen. c.) That the inventory drawn up with the intervention of
Father Olot is not legal because he has certified in it facts of which
he was not an eye witness, such as the existence of the Royal Decree,
relying only on Bishop Cirilo's word.
10) Furthermore, Argote does not question any longer the Royal Decree
but states categorically that it does not exist: a) Because hitherto
nobody has seen it, b) because if it existed, it should be in the
Archives of the Vicarship, among the procedures concerning Father
Sedella. c) Because Argote did not see the Royal decree, he is not
supposed to obey it since the word only of Bishop Cirilo is not
sufficient.
11) Moreover, Argote states that there is no doubt that the auxiliary
Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona was not sure whether the Negroes belonged or
not to Father Sedella because he himself said "that he took them over
because he believed they were Father Sedella's." On the other hand,
Argote demanded the Negroes on May 10, 1790 a few days after Father
Sedella's departure, and the inventory, already known, was dated on
Jan. 30, 1792. There lies the reason why the procedures concerning
these facts disappeared from the Vicarship. Otherwise, Bishop Cirilo
on Jan. 30, 1792, the date of the inventory, would be unable to affirm
that the Negroes were Father Sedella's inasmuch as by the testimony of
a public contract he knew perfectly that the Negroes belonged to
Argote. Therefrom it appears clearly the premeditated intention with
which they tried to conceal the documentation by means of a series of
incidents which have retarded the delivery of the Negroes. Marin
criticizes also Dr. Henriquez who has relied on the existence of a
presumed Royal Decree.
12) Wherefore, Marin Argote states categorically that Bishop Cirilo
has been unable to prove his claim, since there is no Royal Decree. So
that the only thing the Ecclesiastical Judge, Dr. Henriquez, has to do
is to order the immediate delivery of the Negroes.
13) Marin Argote demands: a) The delivery of the slaves. b) The
right to charge the day wages earned by the Negroes since he has been
deprived of them and the right to charge the other damages he has
suffered as well.
14) Argote is enclosing therewith a copy in order that, after being
corrected and examined by the Notary, it may be given back to him.
Signed by Pedro Marin Argote.
--- To this is added a marginal note by Quinones certifying that on
June 15, 1792, the above document was delivered to him by Argote with a
copy, which, after being adjusted and corrected, was given back to
Argote.
--- To this is added a decree by Dr. Henriquez, dated on June 15,
1792, ordering, in regard to Argote's above petition, them to abide by
the anterior decree, and that the Notary must not accept any similar
document, under penalty. Signed by Dr. Henriquez and certified by
Quinones.
--- To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that, on the same
day, he notified Argote of the above decree.
--- Another note is added by Quinones certifying that on the same day
a testimony of the above decree was put on the copy which was delivered
to Argote.
--------
1792 Jun. 18
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Henriquez, Dr. Teodoro Tirso
(New Orleans,)
Marin asks:
1) To be permitted to appeal to the Superior Tribunal since the
decree of June 15, 1792 denies definitely the restitution of the
Negroes.
2) That Henriquez may order that testimonies be taken from the
proceedings.
3) To be notified of the day when the original and the copies may be
adjusted.
4) That, once this is done, the originals must be delivered to him in
order to present them to the Superior Tribunal.
5) Finally, Argote states that he is enclosing a copy of the present
document in order that the decision of the Tribunal may be certified on
it.
--- To this is added a decree by Dr. Henriquez on June 18, 1792
ordering: a) That the appeal, in the main, is conceded. b) That the
original procedures are to be delivered and a testimony left in the
Archives of the Vicarship. Signed by Dr. Henriquez and certified by
Quinones.
--- To this is added a note by Quinones certifying that, on the same
day, he notified Argote of the above decree.
--- Another note is added by Quinones certifying, that, on the same
day, a judicial note of the above decree was written on copy presented
by Argote.
--- To this is added on June 22, 1792, a list of the expenses of Pedro
Marin Argote drawn up by Luis Liotau.
The Appeal:
--------
1792 Aug. 23
Garcia, Juan, Attorney of the Number (Procurador del Numiero) and Gonzalez, Pedro Jose, Licenciate, in the name of Pedro Marin Argote.
to Bishop (Felipe Jose) Trespalacios of
Havana
1) These summarize the development of the procedures and qualify what
was done with the Negroes by Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona a true embargo
and sequestration.
2) Moreover, they state that Argote on the 18th of last month
appealed against the decree of Dr. Henriquez issued on June 15, 1792,
and that in virtue of this, they recur, in the name of Marin, to the
Superior Tribunal.
3) Since all the required documents have been handed in, they ask the
Bishop of Havana that: a) The prosecution of the process, b) The
expression of the offenses. c) Once this is done, the procedures
should be given back, without any prosecution in the meantime. Signed
by Pedro Jose Gonzales, Licenciate and Juan Garcia, attorney of the
number,
-- To this is added a decree dated Aug. 23, 1792, by Bishop Felipe
Jose de Trespalacios that the power is considered as granted and that
the procedures are to be carried out as they have been asked for.
Signed by Felipe Jose de Trespalacios and certified by Francisco Font,
ecclesiastical Notary.
--- To this is added a note by Font certifying that on the same day he
notified Juan Garcia of the above decree.
--- to this is added:
--------
1792 Jun. 12
Argote, Pedro Marin
(New Orleans)
to Juan Garcia, Attorney of the Number in
Havana
1) Constituent --- Pedro Marin Argote, Postmaster of the Province of
New Orleans.
2) Attorney --- Juan Garcia.
3) Faculties granted by the constituent: To represent him in all the
civil and criminal, ordinary and executive affairs that he began or
will begin against whomsoever, or to defend him in all the causes that
may be brought up against him. Signed by Argote, Pedro Pedesclaux,
Notary Public, and witnessed by Miguel Gomez, Celestino Lavergne,
Santiago Lemaire.
--- To this is added a note by Pedesclaux certifying that the above
copy was drawn up at the request of the party, and that the original
remains in the Archives of his office. Signed by Francisco Broutin,
Carlos Ximenes and Luis Liotau.
--------
1792 Aug. 29
Garcia, Juan, and
Gonzalez, Pedro Jose in the name of Pedro Marin Argote
to Bishop Felipe Jose de Trespalacios
(Havana)
They ask Bishop de Trespalacios:
1) That the Auxiliary Bishop, Cirilo de Barcelonas, should make
manifest the existence of the Royal Decree.
2) That Bishop Cirilo should indicate the halting place of the
proceedings carried by Marin Argote before him, and, in the case that
he does not have them, he should prove clearly that these proceedings
have existed.
3) That if it were not possible to present the manifestation of the
Royal Decree, Bishop Cirilo should indicate both the channel through
which he received it and who was the minister of faith who authorized
it.
4) That once all this is done, the proceedings should be delivered.
Signed by Juan Garcia and Pedro Jose Gonzalez.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop de Trespalacios, on Aug. 29,
1792, ordering that the above document is to be seen by the
ecclesiastical Attorney General. Signed by Bishop de Trespalacios.
--- To this is added a note by Francisco Font certifying that, on the
same day, he notified both Juan Garcia and the ecclesiastical Attorney
General of the above decree.
--------
1792 Sep. 1
The decision of the Ecclesiastical Attorney General,
Doctor Esteban Jose Conde.
(Havana)
Conde states:
1) That all that has been carried out in the present procession is
useless because the main point of the question has not been taken into
consideration.
2) That Father Sedella is a Capuchin and, thereby, he made a solemn
vow of poverty. the circumstances that he was a pastor, does not
dispense him from the vow of poverty, according to the Law 25, Title
15, Book I of the Abrigment of Indies. According to the context of
this law, the King desires the religious, in the benefices and
doctrines, live according to the rules of their institutions, and these
rules dispose that the Religious cannot have either personal goods or
transfer them. Therefore, the King calls "Alms" the rents he grants to
these religious for the tranquility of their consciences, because he
does not want to dispense them from their vows. These alms are given,
through the Exchequer, to the Religious for their proper support, and
what may be left they must use for the continuance of studies, of the
divine worship and of other things necessary to the convent of their
order.
3) Thus, the sale of the slaves is null because the buyer, Argote,
did not acquire dominion over the slaves because Father Sedella never
had it. Moreover, Father Sedella did not mention in the contract the
permission of his Provincial who could not give it, however, without
violating the rules of the institution and the law above quoted.
Moreover, there was not Royal permission if we consider the
instructions of his Majesty as explicity manifest.
4) Finally, Conde insists that he too has determined the main point
of the question, and he asks the Bishop: a) To dispose of the
certification solicited on the 29th of last August. b) After this is
accomplished, the procedures should be given to the party concerned.
Signed by Dr. Esteban Jose Conde.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop de Trespalacios that Bishop
Cirilo de Barcelona should certify according to what was asked by the
party concerned and consented to by the ecclesiastical attorney.
Signed by Bishop de Trespalacios.
--- To this is added a note by Font certifying that the above decree
was issued and signed by Bishop de Trespalacios on Sep. 1, 1792.
--- To this is added another note by Font certifying that, on the same
day, he notified both the Ecclesiastical Attorney and Juan Garcia of
the above decree.
--------
1792 Sep. 1
Garcia, Juan and Pedro Jose Gonzalez in the name of
Pedro Marin Argote
to Bishop de Trespalacios
(Havana)
Garcia states:
1) That, in his preceding document, to be able to express the
complaints, he asked: That Bishop Cirilo should certify about the
existence of the Royal Order, and the stopping point of the procedures
carried out previously by Argote in New Orleans.
2) Moreover, Garcia demands: that a) Trespalacios countermand his
previous order b) and that Cirilo should certify immediately whether
the royal Decree exists or not. Signed by Juan Garcia and Pedro
Gonzalez.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop de Trespalacios, on Sept. 1,
1792 that the above document should be added next to that of the
Ecclesiastical Attorney General. Signed by Bishop Trespalacios and
certified by Francisco Font.
--- To this is added another note by Font certifying that, on the same
day, he notified both Juan Garcia and the Ecclesiastical Attorney of
the above decree.
--------
1792 Sep. 1
Font, Francisco, Ecclesiastical Notary
(Havana)
Font certifies:
1) That in the convent of St. Francis he notified Bishop Cirilo of
the above decree.
2) That, then, Bishop Cirilo certified: a) That at the time of the arrest of Father Sedella he found at his home seven slaves. Within eight or ten days, Andres Almonaster demanded three of them, saying that he had bought them from the Ursuline Religious and rented them to Father Sedella. b) That, within the same time, appeared Pedro Marin Argote and demanded the rest of the slaves: the Negro woman Babe, with her three children, Honorio three years old, Antonio six and Teresa two. In regard to the fourth child, he was born after the departure of Father Sedella. c) As to the slaves demanded by Almonaster, Bishop Cirilo did not hesitate to deliver them, since he was building the church and the slaves could be useful to this end. d) As to the rest of the slaves, Bishop Cirilo kept them until His Majesty might decide. Effectively, on Oct. 15, 1790, the King ordered him to keep the Negro woman Babe and her children.
3) That this was all Bishop Cirilo could certify. Signed by Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona and notarized by Francisco Font.
--------
1794 Oct. 18
Garcia, Juan and Pedro Gonzalez Pedro
to the Bishop Felipe Jose de Trespalacios
(Havana)
Garcia in the name of Pedro Marin Argote states:
1) That in one of the preceding documents he asked the Bishop to
decree: a) That the auxiliary Bishop Cirilo de Barcelona should show
the Royal Decree or give an acceptable proof of it. b) That Bishop
Cirilo should account for the proceedings carried out previously before
him by Argote.
2) That the certification of Bishop Cirilo does not correspond to what
was ordained by the Tribunal and further that the Royal Decree was
dated on Oct. 15, 1790.
3) That if this Royal Decree exists in reality, there is no reason to
conceal it, because it does not belong to matters that exact
secrecy.
4) That granting that there is such Royal Decree (what Argote denies),
there is no doubt that it was obtained through deception.
5) That Father Sedella was a true employee with salary. a) By reason
of the orders of the Bull of Pius VI, issued in Rome on Feb. 10, 1784.
b) Because of the Royal letters patent issued on May 23 of the same
year, whereby the Religious are given the faculty of bequeathing the
goods they may have acquired by means of their employment in the Royal
Service, and are at the same time acquitted for excommunication,
suspension, interdiction, and other ecclesiastical censures.
6) That the Capuchins of Louisiana enjoy then the above privilege, and
accordingly they can buy what they may need, sell what they please and
dispose in a binding manner of their goods.
7) That the ecclesiastical Attorney General, now Vicar General, in his
decree referred only to the abridged law and not to the privileges the
King has bestowed upon the Capuchins, who serve His Majesty with salary
in the province of Louisiana in the same way as other Religious
Capuchins who serve His Majesty in the Army, the Fleet, Garrisons,
castles and hospitals.
8) Furthermore, Garcia asks: a) That Bishop Cirilo should show the
Royal Order which he mentioned in his certification. b) That in case
he may not present the Royal Order, the Tribunal should order the
immediate delivery of the slaves. Signed by Juan Garcia and Pedro Jose
Gonzalez.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop de Trespalacios on Oct. 18,
1794 ordering that the foregoing should be sent to the Ecclesiastical
Attorney General and that Bishop Cirilo should prove the existence of
the Royal Order. Signed by Bishop de Trespalacios and certified by
Francisco Font.
--------
1794 Nov. 6
Barcelona, Cirilo de Barcelona, Bishop of
(Havana)
Bishop Cirilo certifies:
1) That the main purpose of his actuation in the affairs of Father
Sedella was to preserve from danger the ecclesiastical goods and to
mind the rents of the bills to which Father Sedella was obliged as a
collector.
2) That he notified His Majesty of all the procedures through the
minister of Indies, and received his answer the same way. The
originals of the process were sent to Bishop de Trespalacios who asked
Dr. Teodoro Henriquez to pursue and conclude the case.
3) That, being free of the present case, he dedicated himself to more
important affairs both particular and public assigned to him by Bishop
de Trespalacios, such as the general visit of the Diocese, which did
not give him time to answer the impertinences of Argote.
4) That he certifies what he remembers and that as he does not have
the procedure he cannot relate his intervention more precisely. Signed
by Cirilo Barcelona.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop de Trespalacios on Feb. 10,
1795 that the above certification was seen and that what he ordered in
his decree of the 7th instant should be accomplished. Furthermore,
that Bishop Cirilo had made a manifest and notorious mistake in
certifying about his general visit of the Diocese. Signed by Bishop de
Trespalacios and certified by Francisco Font.
--------
1795 Feb. 7
Garcia, Juan in the name of Pedro Marin Argote
to Bishop de Trespalacios
(Havana)
Garcia demands that the ecclesiastical notary should complete within a
day what is pending and certify the reason for the detention of the
process, in order to further the action. Signed by Juan Garcia.
--- On the same day, Bishop de Trespalacios decreed:
1) That His Majesty ordered him to remit to the elect Bishop of
Louisiana all that concerns Father Antonio de Sedella, Capuchin,
because this cause belongs precisely to his jurisdiction.
2) a. That the cause should be delayed in his Tribunal and all the
preceding documents sent to the Bishop of Louisiana. b. That Bishop
Cirilo is to be notified to deliver any document he may have concerning
the case, because, according to an affirmation of the present Notary,
he has other proceedings. Signed by Bishop de Trespalacios and
certified by Francisco Font.
--- To this is added a note by Miranda, Notary, certifying that, on
the same day, he notified Juan Garcia of the above decree.
--------
1795 Sep. 26
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Bishop Penalver y Cardenas
(New Orleans)
Argote states:
1) That in the present case he appealed against the decision of the
primary court to the Bishop of Havana who was then also Bishop of New
Orleans.
2) That, Father Sedella who returned to New Orleans, exposed his case
to him and assured that he cannot be held responsible for what happened
to Argote because he facilitated the latter's claim to his rights.
3) Finally, Argote demands: a) The delivery of the slaves, without
costs to him, but with costs paid the other party. b) That he be
indemnified for the losses he suffered by the illegal deprivation of
the slaves. Signed by Antonio Marin Argote.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop Penalver, on Sept. 26, 1795,
that the proceedings should be handed over to Argote in order that he
may act properly. Signed by the Bishop and certified by Dr. Jose Maria
de Rivas, Secretary.
--- To this is added a note by Rivas certifying that, on the same day,
he notified Argote of the above decree.
--------
1795 Oct. 5
Argote, Pedro Marin
to Bishop Penalver y Cardenas
(New Orleans)
1) Argote restates all he had said in previous documents and begs the
Bishop on the merits of the documents and the contract of purchase of
the slaves, to do justice: a) In regard to the restitution of the
slaves. b) In regard to the damages he suffered by the illegal
deprivation of the slaves. c) In regard to the expenses of the present
process.
2) Furthermore, Argote begs the Bishop's pardon if he makes any
mistake in the forms of the procedures because there are no lawyers in
New Orleans. Signed by Pedro Marin Argote.
--- To this is added a decree by Bishop Penalver y Cardenas, on Oct.
5, 1795, ordering that Father Sedella should be notified of the
representation, without affecting the nature of the case. Signed by
the Bishop and certified by rivas.
--- To this is added a note by Rivas certifying that, on the same day,
he notified Argote of the above decree.
--- To this is added another note by Rivas certifying that, on the
same day, he notified Father Sedella, who said: a) That he executed
the contract of sale in behalf of Pedro Marin Argote; b) That he
renounces the act of delivering the judicial proceedings; c) That the
Tribunal may determine what is just. Signed by Father Antonio de
Sedella.
--------
1795 Oct. 8
Penalver y Cardenas, Luis Bishop
(New Orleans)
Bishop Penalver decrees:
1) That the same right that Father Sedella had to buy the Negro woman
Babe from Francisco Riano, he had to sell her by the contract of
February 13, 1790 before the Notary Pedro Pedesclaux.
2) That as it appears from the proceedings of Oct. 5, 1795 Father
Sedella is acquainted with all the process. Furthermore, the King
ordered, by Royal letters patent of June 22, 1791, Nov. 16, 1792, and
Oct. 22, 1794, Father Sedella to take charge of the parish of the
Parochial Church of New Orleans, of which he had been deprived. These
Royal letters patent have been put into effect already, with the
delivery of the goods which have been taken from Father Sedella.
3) Finally the Bishop orders the delivery of the Negro woman Babe and
her children to Argote. Signed by the Bishop and certified by
Rivas.
--- To this is added a note by Rivas certifying that, on the same day,
he notified Argote of the above decree.
IV-5-d D.S. (Spanish) 95pp. 4to.
28