Page:History of California, Volume 3 (Bancroft).djvu/391

Rh and even tried to collect his salary; but he received no attention whatever from the Mexican authorities, and was exasperated the more on that account. His treatment at the hands of Ramirez and Figueroa — for he blamed the governor hardly less than the administrator — was in his view not only the greatest outrage of modern times, but the cause from which sprung all of California's subsequent evils. His writings on the subject are but wordy and declamatory protestations of his own patriotism and the baseness of his foes, always in general terms, for he avoided specification both in defence and attack. Once, however, he determined after much hesitation to produce evidence that could but prove Ramirez's revenue frauds and triumphantly justify his own acts. The evidence turned out to be a statement of José Antonio Carrillo that Don Angel was an 'apostate friar'! The truth is, that while Angel Ramirez was a scoundrel in comparison with Juan Bandini, the latter allowed his disappointment to run away with his judgment in this quarrel, and did not leave a dignified or flattering record. Subsequently he retrieved his fortunes to some extent, and regained his temper. He also had the pleasure of knowing that his foe had died in disgrace and poverty.

In 1834 Figueroa made a report to the Mexican government on the condition and past history of commercial industries, including something also of financial management. He explained his own efforts to introduce order and compliance with the national laws; but admitted that in some respect such compliance was impracticable under the circumstances. His concluding suggestions were that Monterey should be opened to foreign trade, and the other ports to the coasting trade; that foreign vessels be allowed to engage for five years more in the coasting trade; and