Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 16.djvu/77

 MASSES

61

MASSES

terminated by 13 May, 1609. Corrosion and the constant action of the water caused caving-in in the interior of the tunnel, and obstructed tlie passage to such an extent that, during the viceregency of Arch- bishop Fray Garcia Guerra (1611-12), in reply to the inquiry made by PhiUp III for information concern- ing the utihty of the work, the amount so far ex- pended, and what would still be required to complete it, the archbishop and the municipal government re- plied that the work done by Martin was not sufficient to place the citv beyond the danger of inundations and that 8413,325 had been expended and 1,126,650 workmen engaged in the work. Martin wrote to the king contradicting this information.

The viceroy, D. Diego Ferndndez de Cordoba, Marques de Guadalcazar (1612-21), the successor of Fray Garcia Guerra, was sent from »?pain with special instructions concerning the work of the draining of the valley. At the same time Philip III commissioned the Spanish ambassador to the Court of France, D. Inigo Contreras, to find a competent engineer for the work and the Hollander Adrian Boot, who arrived in Mexico in 1614, was selected. At the suggestion of the viceroy, Boot with Martin and the auditor Otalora visited the works and each made a report. Boot re- ported that Martin's canal called Huehuetoca or Nochistongo was inadequate and presented plans for a new work which would cost $18.5,900; Martin offered with 300 men and $100,000 to finish the work, and to moreover divert into the course of the canal the waters of the River Cuauhtitlan, which, when it rose, overflowed into the valley of Mexico. Boot's plan was rejected, and that presented by Martin was accepted with the king's approval. The royal ap- probation was obtained 3 April, 1616, and Mar- tin received his instructions to begin the work at once.

In 1623 when the work was still in an unfinished state the Viceroy Marques de Bclvez (1621-24) to test the utility of the canal directed the work to be suspended and the waters, including that of the Kiver Cuauhtitlan, which was then discharging through the tunnel, to be once more diverted into the lakes of the valley. This caused a flood in 1627 and the municipal government petitioned the Viceroy Cerralvo (1624- 35) to rectify the trouble and avert a disaster. The viceroy entrusted the matter to Boot, Martin, and several others who had studied the situation, and all submitted reports. Between disputes and meetings the time up to 1629 was lost and the mouth of Mar- tin's tunnel having become practically obstructed, the waters of the Cuauhtitlan overflowed into the Lake of Zumpango and the City of Mexico was placed in great peril. The viceroy had Martin arrested and imprisoned on the charge of having purposely closed the mouth of the tunnel, to which he replied that the lack of funds had prevented the repairs being made in the roof of the tunnel, and that the portions that had caved in had impeded the flow of the water. A few days later (21 Sept., 1629) he was relea.sed and the work of repairing the tunnel put into his hands. It was, however, too late, as the following day the greatest of all the floods occurred, water rising in the city proper to the height of two metres. The ravages of the water were terrible, the greater portion of the houses were rendered uninhabitable, and according to some historians 30,000 persons lost their lives. Some years later the auditor, D. Juan de Villabona Cubiaurre, was appointed chief superintendent of the work and submitted an unfavourable report on the work of Martin. The aged engineer defended him.self against these imputations, but his opinion was treated with so much scorn that he died the following year, crushed by the injustice and disappointment. In 1789 the tunnel was converted into an open canal which is still to be seen. Within very recent years an entirely new project has been carried out by which

the water.s of the valley discharge through the Tequis- quiac tunnel.

IVIartln left a number of works among which may be mentioned: "Repertorio de tienipo e historia natural de NuevaEspana" (Mexico, 1606); " .Vgricultura de Nucva Kspana sobre la cria de ganados, labores, huertas, jardines, etc."; "De fisionomia de rostros"; "Discurso sobre la magna conjunci6n de los planetas Jupiter y Saturno acaecida el 24 de Diciembre de 1603"; "Treinta y dos mapas de la costa del sur de Nueva F/Sinfm, de sus puertos, ensenadas, cabos, etc."

Diccion'i: ' " 'h'co hispano-americano (Barcelona,

1893); Sill. i I,', nolucidn social (.Mexico, 1901) ; BERia-

TAIN, Bihl '-'imericana septentrioTial (Amecameca,

1883); Paumiu, .\Uj.,.j a Iravfs de los sigtos. III (Barcelona).

Camillus Crivelli.

Masses, Bequest.s for. — "The efficacy of prayers for the dead", remarks the Court of Appeals of the State of New York in HoUand v. Alcock, 108 New York Court of Appeals Reports, page 312, "is one of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church . . . and those professing that belief are entitled in law to the same respect and protection in their rehgious ob- servances thereof as tho.se of any other denomina- tion" (p. 329). But the court held to be of no effect a bequest by a testator to his executors of money "to be applied by them for the purpose of having prayers olTered in a Roman CathoUc Church to be by them selected for the repose of my soul and the souls of my family and also the souls of all others who may be in purgatory". And foOowing this decision the same court, in a later case, declared to be of no effect a be- quest by a testator to his executors of a sum of money "to be expended in having masses said for the repose of his soul" (see O'Conner v. Gifford, 117 New York Court of Appeals Reports, p. 276), or, as rather in- felicitously expressed by the judge writing the opin- ion of the court, "disposed of in the purchase of masses" (p. 283). Notwithstanding "respect and protection" due to "Roman Catholic" religious ob- servances, these legacies failed, because "religious or pious uses were, when the Roman Catholic religion prevailed in England, recognized as charities" (108 ibid., p. 325), and the court held that the English legal doctrine on which the validity of charitable uses and trusts depended was not a part of the law of the State of New York. And, since in that state the bequests could not be upheld as charities, their vahd- ity was deemed to be open to an objection fatal to the validity of any trust not charitable, namely, "absence of an ascertainable beneficiary" (108 ibid., p. 329; Fosdick v. Town of North Hempstead, 125 ibid., p. 591).

The court in the Holland case calls attention to the circumstance that its decision adverse to the ex- istence in New York of the English legal doctrine of charities is a denial of the correctness of the Court of Appeals in the previous case of Williams v. Williams, decided in 1853 (8 New York Court of Appeals Re- ports, p. 525), the doctrine of that case being that charitable trusts are a part, of the law of the state, "that they came to us Ijy inheritance from our Brit- ish ancestors and as part of our common law" (108 ibid., p. 3.36). The Holland case was decided in 1888, the O'Conner ca.se in 1.SS9. The highest court of the state having thus decided that the legal doctrine of the same court in 18.53 was erroneous and to be no longer adhered to, the legislature of the state enacted in 1893 a statute (Laws of 1893, chapter 701), which has been declared by the Court of Appeals "to re- store the ancient doctrine of charitable uses and trusts as a part of the law of this State" (Bowman v. Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, 182 Court of Appeals Reports, p. 498, decided in 1905), "the law of charitable trusts as declared in the Williams case" (Allen v. Stevens, 161 ibid., p. 141, decided in 1899). As if to approve legislatively what is thus