“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...
“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ... “MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...
local elites to seize the Frenchman’s property. Specifically, José Maria Fernandez Vior and Lafitte had engaged in a long-running dispute over the boundaries between their neighboring lands. Conflicts over the Lafitte tract had begun as early as 1865. Belisario Correa had brought suit during that year against Lafitte in order to seize the property to satisfy debts stemming from a previous partnership. Acting in his role as departmental head, Atanasildo Saldaña had attempted to compel both sides to accept a neutral survey of the lands in order to resolve the dispute. Sañudo and Lafitte, however, argued that Saldaña could not properly adjudicate Lafitte’s property rights. They had the case transferred to Montevideo. 47 Vior, Saldaña’s son-in-law, later purchased the Correa tract and other properties around Lafitte’s sometime in the early 1870s. By 1875, Saldaña was again acting as the departmental head in Salto. Saldaña had, according to his creditors, “acquired a great estancia in this Department and had founded upon it a valuable establishment.” Several creditors alleged that in order to avoid paying debts, Saldaña had alienated the property to Vior and another family member. 48 Given these circumstances, Lafitte’s land now stood in the path of Saldaña’s powerful interests. Vior certainly was in a position to obtain signatures against Lafitte in an effort to seize his land and stain his reputation. 49 Saldaña’s ability to mobilize the voices of the assembled vecinos in the letter represented his considerable strength and personal reputation in the salteño countryside. The letter was a key moment within the old system of borderlands legalities in which Saldaña could publicly pronounce his status as a lynchpin in the community’s system of personal and 47 D. Belisario Correa c. D. Teodoro Lafitte sobre desalojo de un campo, AGN-SJ. Salto. Letrados Civiles, n. 32 (1865). 48 D. José María Guerra c. D. Atanasildo Saldaña por cobre de pesos, AGN-SJ. Salto. Letrados Civiles, n. 2 (1876). Juez Letrado Gil resolved the dispute in Saldaña’s favor. 49 D. José Maria Fernandez Vior c. D. Teodoro Laffit por cobro egecutivo de pesos, AGN-SJ. Salto. Letrados Civiles, n. 123 (1878). 350
political allegiances. Within the framework of the borderlands legal order, the testimony of “honorable vecinos,” whether informal or not, also offered one of the best forms of judicial proof possible. Arteagada, however, refused to recognize it. He wrote that the court had to “judge the matter on the facts, not allegations.” 50 He then dismissed the case. In contrast to his decision in favor of Guimaraens and his allies on the JEA, Arteagada this time directly challenged a powerful local figure. He also publicly repudiated the network of local allies Saldaña had called forth in support of his property rights. As we have seen on a number of occasions, Arteagada’s decision directly confronted Saldaña’s place in the community. Saldaña had to respond forcefully or risk losing his status within his local legal world. To protect his personal reputation, Saldaña returned to the courts. He also used Salto’s tribunals to articulate the limits on the power of national judicial figures like Arteagada to reject local legal norms. The specific incident involved a fight between Julio Delgado, Arteagada’s bailiff, and Alberto Maldonado, the departmental fiscal. 51 According to witnesses, Maldonado and Delgado had an altercation as they were leaving the residence of Juan Cruz y Costa, the jefe político. Delgado had accused Maldonado of corruption for receiving “considerations” from Mauricio Castro, Salto’s notary public. The allegations connected to Castro’s involvement with Emilio Thevenet and others in their ongoing disputes over the activities of the JEA. Reports then differed as to whether Delgado or Maldonado fired a pistol at the other. Not taking any chances, Arteagada ordered both men imprisoned until the facts regarding the disturbance could be resolved. Saldaña and his allies seized the incident to discredit Arteagada. The men drafted several letters highlighting Arteagada’s connections to Castro. Recall that Castro had been 50 Sumaria información seguida á Teodoro Lafitte, 71bis. 51 Sumario de Julio Delgado y Alberto Maldonado por pelea, AGN-SJ. Salto. Penales, n. 1 (1879). The incident purportedly occurred in 1878. 351
- Page 309 and 310: guarantee their commercial relation
- Page 311 and 312: governments in Montevideo and Brazi
- Page 313 and 314: nineteen in the provincial militia
- Page 315 and 316: authority to contain the more radic
- Page 317 and 318: captured the city of Corrientes. To
- Page 319 and 320: Urquiza struggled to reorganize his
- Page 321 and 322: attle in March of 1870. 29 By the e
- Page 323 and 324: The national government sent an “
- Page 325 and 326: the reciprocal trading relationship
- Page 327 and 328: splintered into “traditional” a
- Page 329 and 330: country’s ranching elites. In res
- Page 331 and 332: these absurd and unwarranted charge
- Page 333 and 334: protect “the development of those
- Page 335 and 336: police forces to better protect cat
- Page 337 and 338: conspiracies, the steady stream of
- Page 339 and 340: matter was overblown and that repor
- Page 341 and 342: CHAPTER 8 NEGOTIATING NATIONS ALTHO
- Page 343 and 344: Local Legal Practices and National
- Page 345 and 346: pointed link between the “honor
- Page 347 and 348: personal interests, Guarch’s fact
- Page 349 and 350: Guarch first sought to tip the scal
- Page 351 and 352: following the order designated by t
- Page 353 and 354: history in 1877. 24 Salto’s first
- Page 355 and 356: twenty-five peso fine. 29 Leal prom
- Page 357 and 358: serves?” 36 He continued: “Does
- Page 359: abuses “no doubt flowed from the
- Page 363 and 364: Operating within this relationship,
- Page 365 and 366: By the dawn of the 1880s, national
- Page 367 and 368: ejected this evidence, however, fin
- Page 369 and 370: with his son-in-law Alexander da Cr
- Page 371 and 372: not only to affirm these local find
- Page 373 and 374: olster the positions of important l
- Page 375 and 376: CONCLUSION IN 1887, THE GREAT URUGU
- Page 377 and 378: elationships and secure local court
- Page 379 and 380: economies to the forces of global c
- Page 381 and 382: ARGENTINA ARCHIVES CONSULTED BIBLIO
- Page 383 and 384: PUBLISHED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MAT
- Page 385 and 386: Cárcano, Ramón J. Guerra del Para
- Page 387 and 388: Flores, Mariana Flores da Cunha Tho
- Page 389 and 390: Lasso, Marixa. Myths of Harmony: Ra
- Page 391 and 392: Piccolo, Helga I. L. "A Política R
- Page 393 and 394: Schultz, Kirsten. Tropical Versaill
local elites to seize the Frenchman’s property. Specifically, José Maria Fernandez Vior and<br />
Lafitte had engaged in a long-running dispute over the boundaries between their neighboring<br />
lands. Conflicts over the Lafitte tract had begun as early as 1865. Belisario Correa had<br />
brought suit during that year against Lafitte in order to seize the property to satisfy debts<br />
stemming from a previous partnership. Acting in his role as departmental head, Atanasildo<br />
Saldaña had attempted to compel both sides to accept a neutral survey of the lands in order<br />
to resolve the dispute. Sañudo and Lafitte, however, argued that Saldaña could not properly<br />
adjudicate Lafitte’s property rights. They had the case transferred to Montevideo. 47 Vior,<br />
Saldaña’s son-in-law, later purchased the Correa tract and other properties around Lafitte’s<br />
sometime in the early 1870s. By 1875, Saldaña was again acting as the departmental head in<br />
Salto. Saldaña had, according to his creditors, “acquired a great estancia in this Department<br />
and had founded upon it a valuable establishment.” Several creditors alleged that in order to<br />
avoid paying debts, Saldaña had alienated the property to Vior and another family member. 48<br />
Given these circumstances, Lafitte’s land now stood in the path of Saldaña’s powerful<br />
interests. Vior certainly was in a position to obtain signatures against Lafitte in an effort to<br />
seize his land and stain his reputation. 49<br />
Saldaña’s ability to mobilize the voices of the assembled vecinos in the letter<br />
represented his considerable strength and personal reputation in the salteño countryside. The<br />
letter was a key moment within the old system of borderlands legalities in which Saldaña<br />
could publicly pronounce his status as a lynchpin in the community’s system of personal and<br />
<br />
47<br />
D. Belisario Correa c. D. Teodoro Lafitte sobre desalojo de un campo, AGN-SJ. Salto.<br />
Letrados Civiles, n. 32 (1865).<br />
48<br />
D. José María Guerra c. D. Atanasildo Saldaña por cobre de pesos, AGN-SJ. Salto. Letrados<br />
Civiles, n. 2 (1876). Juez Letrado Gil resolved the dispute in Saldaña’s favor.<br />
49<br />
D. José Maria Fernandez Vior c. D. Teodoro Laffit por cobro egecutivo de pesos, AGN-SJ.<br />
Salto. Letrados Civiles, n. 123 (1878).<br />
350 <br />
<br />
Change language