“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...
“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ... “MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...
Concordia properly belonged to Carbajal. In support of his version of events, Vidiella produced a number of prominent vecinos in Uruguaiana. This included his business associates Manuel Lopes Manjardim and José Gonçalves Vianna. Manjardim and Vianna in turn possessed substantial commercial and political connections throughout the Brazilian borderlands, operating a business in both Uruguaiana and near-by Alegrete. 70 With an array of prominent residents appearing in the proceeding, the Uruguaiana court wasted little time in entering an order declaring that the 500 patacones embargoed downriver in Concordia pertained to Carbajal. The notary in Uruguaiana registered the judgment and then it was duly verified by the Argentine counsel in the city. Armed with the notarized judgment, Vidiella returned to Concepción in order to regain his assets. He noted that the embargo had interrupted his commercial journey, blocking a number of transactions valued at over 10,000 pesos. 71 More importantly, however, it had also damaged Vidiella’s good name. Vidiella wrote to the court: “He accuses me of falsehoods and in the deductions that flow from this imputation, he dares to stain my well-deserved reputation as an honorable and judicious merchant.” 72 Vidiella claimed that he had gone to substantial expense to secure proof of his version of the commercial transaction. He now argued that the court should accept his testimony as an 70 Documents registered by Vianna in 1853 when he and Manjardim dissolved their partnership provide a glimpse into their commercial activities in Rio Grande do Sul and along the Uruguay River. Vianna indicated that the two men had established their business in Alegrete in 1835. During the Farrapos Rebellion they moved a substantial portion of their operations in Gualeguaychú, Entre Ríos. APRGS. Alegrete. Tableionato. Registros Diversos, Lançamento de uma carta de Antonio Cabrera dirigida a José Gonçalves Vianna (July 5, 1853), 24- 24bis. Following the war, they continued to maintain ties to important merchants in Uruguaiana, including Fermin Carbajal. For a description of these commercial networks, see Antonio Lopes Monjardim c. Antonio Joaquim Barbosa, e outros, APRGS. Cartório Civil e Crime. Ações Ordinárias. Alegrete, Maço 35, No. 833 (1853). 71 Expediente seguido por D. Gregorio Blanes c. D. Francisco Vidiella, 13. 72 Ibid., 12. 100
honorable merchant. His associates in Uruguaiana had publicly confirmed his standing before the tribunal there. He called upon the court “to review and read with attention the transcript [legajo] of the Uruguaiana proceeding” establishing not only his legal position, but also his good name. 73 Blanes then filed his own evidence with the commercial court in Concepción. He first claimed that the supposed “proof” produced in the Uruguaiana proceeding was irrelevant. He argued: “Señor Vidiella’s evidence constitut[es] a mere digression” in the true course of the proceeding. 74 Blanes then provided statements from his own witnesses in Concordia and Salto establishing that the 500 patacones in Vidiella’s possession did in fact pertain to Barú and was properly subject to Blanes’ embargo. In particular, Francisco Pons, the alcalde ordinario in Concordia that had ordered the embargo, offered testimony claiming that Vidiella had admitted to numerous witnesses that the money belonged to Barú. Based on the evidence of a number of honorable vecinos in Concordia, Blanes argued that the court had little choice but to award him the money in question. 75 Both Blanes and Vidiella utilized their local reputations as prominent merchants and officials in Concordia and Uruguaiana to support their claims. Interestingly, the nationality of the two men – one Uruguayan and the other Brazilian – did not enter into the entrerriano court’s discussion. Neither party suggested that it should. Rather, the Concepción court faced the task of resolving a conflict between these two networks of local witnesses linked together through rivertine trade. Moreover, it had to do so without any form of private 73 Ibid., 55. 74 Ibid., 38bis. 75 Ibid., 54-54bis. 101
- Page 59 and 60: military headquarters along the ban
- Page 61 and 62: sovereignty rooted in borderlands p
- Page 63 and 64: Artigas’ defeat did not spell the
- Page 65 and 66: economy. By 1822, the powerful merc
- Page 67 and 68: universal laws that would further r
- Page 69 and 70: Pedro abdicated the throne in 1831,
- Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 2 THE (RE)EMERGENCE OF BORD
- Page 73 and 74: operate throughout the borderlands
- Page 75 and 76: and staple exports instead of the o
- Page 77 and 78: Ríos in particular witnessed a dra
- Page 79 and 80: goods as far north as the cities of
- Page 81 and 82: simmering struggles. By 1840, local
- Page 83 and 84: merchants, traders and landowners.
- Page 85 and 86: earning the faction’s colorado ti
- Page 87 and 88: Guarch’s deal with Carvalho revea
- Page 89 and 90: web of reciprocal relationships tha
- Page 91 and 92: the border in Brazil. In this way,
- Page 93 and 94: In short, over the course of a deca
- Page 95 and 96: that he had employed to first arran
- Page 97 and 98: opposite direction from Porto Alegr
- Page 99 and 100: Pinto sought to have the property d
- Page 101 and 102: dealings with Vázquez and the Carv
- Page 103 and 104: Ríos or by ship to Montero’s out
- Page 105 and 106: alliances with the blancos to open
- Page 107 and 108: connections up and down the river t
- Page 109: With his money now in limbo and his
- Page 113 and 114: meant more than establishing a docu
- Page 115 and 116: Uruguaiana and Salto. 80 Chaves and
- Page 117 and 118: complex laws “that they only unde
- Page 119 and 120: were considered suspect, particular
- Page 121 and 122: status. Public recognition of one
- Page 123 and 124: They reasoned that “one has to re
- Page 125 and 126: unanimous and respected testimony o
- Page 127 and 128: powerful figures like Urquiza, depe
- Page 129 and 130: CHAPTER 3 SOVEREIGN CONFLICTS THE R
- Page 131 and 132: conflicts between peripheral ranche
- Page 133 and 134: further agreed to provide payments
- Page 135 and 136: Sosa almost immediately responded.
- Page 137 and 138: funds, the imperial government took
- Page 139 and 140: Throughout the early 1830s, the Uru
- Page 141 and 142: Fernandes Braga, the provincial pre
- Page 143 and 144: Frustrated by the lack of progress,
- Page 145 and 146: cataloguing illegal property confis
- Page 147 and 148: also provided prominent local elite
- Page 149 and 150: As the 1850s dawned, the persistent
- Page 151 and 152: traffic along the Uruguay. Rosas fi
- Page 153 and 154: would order, they intend to be resp
- Page 155 and 156: economic and political relationship
- Page 157 and 158: fed back into broader political dis
- Page 159 and 160: advance their visions for a new nat
Concordia properly belonged to Carbajal. In support of his version of events, Vidiella<br />
produced a number of prominent vecinos in Uruguaiana. This included his business<br />
associates Manuel Lopes Manjardim and José Gonçalves Vianna. Manjardim and Vianna in<br />
turn possessed substantial commercial and political connections throughout the Brazilian<br />
borderlands, operating a business in both Uruguaiana and near-by Alegrete. 70 With an array<br />
of prominent residents appearing in the proceeding, the Uruguaiana court wasted little time<br />
in entering an order declaring that the 500 patacones embargoed downriver in Concordia<br />
pertained to Carbajal. The notary in Uruguaiana registered the judgment and then it was<br />
duly verified by the Argentine counsel in the city.<br />
Armed with the notarized judgment, Vidiella returned to Concepción in order to<br />
regain his assets. He noted that the embargo had interrupted his commercial journey,<br />
blocking a number of transactions valued at over 10,000 pesos. 71 More importantly,<br />
however, it had also damaged Vidiella’s good name. Vidiella wrote to the court: “He<br />
accuses me of falsehoods and in the deductions that flow from this imputation, he dares to<br />
stain my well-deserved reputation as an honorable and judicious merchant.” 72 Vidiella<br />
claimed that he had gone to substantial expense to secure proof of his version of the<br />
commercial transaction. He now argued that the court should accept his testimony as an<br />
<br />
70 Documents registered by Vianna in 1853 when he and Manjardim dissolved their<br />
partnership provide a glimpse into their commercial activities in Rio Grande do Sul and<br />
along the Uruguay River. Vianna indicated that the two men had established their business<br />
in Alegrete in 1835. During the Farrapos Rebellion they moved a substantial portion of their<br />
operations in Gualeguaychú, Entre Ríos. APRGS. Alegrete. Tableionato. Registros Diversos,<br />
Lançamento de uma carta de Antonio Cabrera dirigida a José Gonçalves Vianna (July 5, 1853), 24-<br />
24bis. Following the war, they continued to maintain ties to important merchants in<br />
Uruguaiana, including Fermin Carbajal. For a description of these commercial networks, see<br />
Antonio Lopes Monjardim c. Antonio Joaquim Barbosa, e outros, APRGS. Cartório Civil e Crime.<br />
Ações Ordinárias. Alegrete, Maço 35, No. 833 (1853).<br />
71 Expediente seguido por D. Gregorio Blanes c. D. Francisco Vidiella, 13.<br />
72 Ibid., 12.<br />
100 <br />
Change language