“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

of cattle from the da Silva’s lands, provided that he do so within three months. Upon
learning of the settlement, Lima was outraged. Lima claimed that blanco control of the
countryside made it impossible for him to remove any cattle from the lands in question,
much less within the three months designated by the agreement. Lima stated bluntly: “as
soon as I learned of the agreement, knowing it could not be executed, I refused to accept it
before fully protesting against such an absurd and grievous contract.” 144 He argued that he
had only granted Estolle the authority to seek recovery of his lands and property across the
border. Estolle did not possess the power to enter into any settlements designed solely to
ratify da Silva’s illegal conduct. Lima claimed that Estolle and da Silva had essentially
colluded with blanco officials to abscond with his property.
Lima then worked to void the Salto settlement back across the border in Brazil.
Lima obtained a decree from subdelegado de policía in Santana do Livramento in 1854 declaring
the settlement illegal and da Silva liable for the theft of Lima’s cattle. In his pleadings in the
later Alegrete case, Lima again attacked the settlement as illegal, stating: “it is clear that the
respondent’s warhorse, the settlement, was obtained only through an insidious ruse.” 145
Lima appeared to have a strong case. Blanco misconduct towards Brazilian ranchers across
the border was a familiar and persuasive theme in the courts throughout the Brazilian
borderlands. He had had no trouble obtaining a judicial decree in Santana do Livramento
linking da Silva to fraudulent transactions across the border.
As the case evolved, however, the factional conflicts between the Ribeiros and
Canabarro in Alegrete began to influence the dispute over property rights across the border
in the Estado Oriental. Lima’s initial appearance in Santana do Livramento was no accident.
144 Manoel de Almeida Lima c. Manoel Rodrigues da Silva, 7.
145 Ibid., 92bis.
217