“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

They reasoned that “one has to reside here for 10 years to possess that title in order to call
himself a vecino of this town under the Law.” 101
Given Anaya’s status as an outsider, they concluded that he could not properly claim
any right to the town’s common property. In the face of strong local opposition, the courts
in Montevideo suspended Anaya’s petition and called for further investigation. What is
striking, however, is the sharp division between the local, and in this case collective,
allocations of property rights by Rocha’s vecinos and Anaya’s claims based on service to the
nation. Much like the distinctions drawn by local elites in Minas to exclude Cabral from
appearing in their tribunal, local ties trumped nebulous national categories. These types of
conflicts between traditional local aspects of sovereignty and nationalized projects beyond
the borderlands reflected the continuing importance of vecindad in establishing local claims to
legal entitlements. They echoed back to the federalist vision in Artigas’ 1813 instructions of
a loose conglomeration of sovereign pueblos exercising their traditional local rights. This was
particularly so in the face of perceived intrusions by outsiders. It also set the stage for a
fundamental collision over sovereign models as would-be nations (or the political factions
claiming to represent them) attempted to assert control over the administration of justice
along their putative peripheries.
Although the Anaya case involved a dispute between an elite merchant and the
“vecinos of Rocha,” the emphasis the latter placed on their own status as settled residents in
support of their legal claims also suggested an effort to draw a sharp contrast between
vecindad and the wandering population inhabiting the borderlands. In this sense, while
vestiges of Artigas’ radical legalities might remain latent in ideas of local citizenship,
peripheral elites sought to limit its social implications in shaping their own system of
101 Ibid.
113