Concerns repeated requests for Ugarte to submit to O'Conor and new regulation of presidios (1772); need for Ugarte to set good example for his commanders; impossibility of governing regions with such severe discordance of governors; concludes by stressing supremacy of O'Conor in all military matters. (J. Williams, February 1987).

Bucareli(?) Commends Ugarte(?) For his cooperation with O'Conor; he urges him to continue. (J. Williams, February 1987).

Ugarte explains his recommendations; stressing he intends no insubordination towards O'Conor; references to presidio transfers; Indian raids; and Ugarte's reservations about new regulation (1772). (J. Williams, February 1987).

Bucareli(?) Urges Ugarte to support O'Conor's implementation of new regulation (1772) in response to Ugarte's letter of 23 April; he notes that all are to subordinate themselves to O'Conor. (J. Williams, February 1987).

Bucareli? Orders Ugarte to comply with new regulation of presidios (1772) and subordinate himself to O'Conor J. Williams (January 1987).

Ugarte explains his lack of cooperation with O'Conor and implementation of new regulation of presidios (1772); notes on Ugarte's expenses; O'Conor promotion to full Coronel; and the fact that he intends no insubordination. (J. Williams, January 1987).

Viceroy urges Ugarte to support O'Conor's efforts to pacify frontier according to new regulation of presidios.J. Williams (January 1987).

Letter concerning commerce of soldiers in rations (rather than cash). Ugarte claims that paying them thus, is an expedient made necessary en un Pais Tan pobre como este; Ugarte justifies paying priests in goods because of expenses soldiers have to pay to baptize, house, and give funerals for members of their families. (J. Williams, December 1986).

Report by Nava to Iturrigaray explaining payment of 500 pesos to teniente Zuluaga and eight soldiers for escorting him to capital. Letter from Salcedo supporting Nava's decision. Reprimand of Nava signed by Iturrigaray. (G. Lavalley, January .

Documents from Audiencia de Guadalajara concerning conviction of Juan Antonio Hernandez and others of complicity in theft. Hernandez sentenced to four years in Alta California. Many documents and records concerning his sentence, his transportation to and from Monterrey with his family (via fragatas Concepcion and Princesa), and provisions provided them (ff.444-478, 490, 535-539 deal with Hernandez case and that of Villasenor who Dies in San Blas prison before reaching California). Details of costs incurred by government. Assortment of reports and letters from government officials at Monterrey, San Blas, Guadalajara, and Mexico. Ff. 479-489 and 491-534 concern sentencing of other criminals also to be sent to Alta California as pobladores with their families (M. Vela, T. Prado, J.m.Carrillo, J.c. Simental, R. Ramirez, R. Ruiz, and others). Details about sentences and costs incurred to carry them out. Letter from Arrillaga to viceroy discussing complaints about behavior of criminals sent to Alta California as pobladores (ff. 500-501). Further discussion of this matter by Borbon. Carrillo discusses bad example pobladores sentenced to California present to mission Indians (ff. 515-516). Opinions of other officials in California, Guadalajara, and Mexico on matter of sentencing criminals to be pobladores in Alta California. (S. Fiederlein, 2-3-87)