“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

him from this task is to possess plain and honorable qualities.” 11 In Tavarez’s eyes, Amaro
appeared to be the consummate vecino. He was deeply rooted in the borderland town’s
political and economic webs. His prominent local office reflected his personal standing. His
national identity was irrelevant to the question. Tavarez argued: “it was simply impertinent
to enter into questions of verifying whether [Amaro] was a Brazilian subject or citizen of this
Republic.” 12
The court in Montevideo disagreed. It declared Tavarez’s proposed deposit invalid.
In reaching its decision, judicial officials in the capital accepted Sosa’s argument that national
citizenship overrode Amaro’s extensive local connections and his “plain and honorable
qualities.” This must have been a blow to both Amaro and Tavarez. The verdict called into
question their personal standing within their respective webs of economic and social
relationships. At the same time, the case’s aftermath suggests the durability of borderlands
legalities and the ability of peripheral inhabitants utilizing them to resist forcibly judicial
incursions from national centers on the coasts. Following the verdict, Sosa bitterly
complained to the court that Amaro was now actively assisting Tavarez in moving his cattle
across the border. This time, Sosa accepted the reality on the ground. He entered into a
settlement with Tavarez, brokered by Amaro, for a portion of the disputed cattle. In doing
so, Sosa reconfirmed the primacy of local order and cross-border reciprocities over abstract
national categories. 13
While the efforts of coastal jurists in Montevideo to undermine personal reputations,
local autonomy and cross-border trading ties might be brushed aside by riograndense ranchers
like Tavarez and Amaro, Brazilian revenue measures were a different story. Desperate for
11 Ibid., 146bis.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
126