Reiteration of the six questions in Vol. 181 seq. B. Between 1750 and 1751 French troops and families arrived in new Orleans presumed to fortify population of Nachitos, puente Cupe and Caudachos. The Indians in the area are presumed to like the French as they are generous with guns, bullets, etc... In endless quantities. The Spanish are uneasy about the French trading with the Indians and trespassing the boundary dividing the two territories established in 1720, the Colorado River. The Spanish view the Mississippi River as a natural boundary. Past autos and documents are consulted to determine how past governors settled the question of trespassing. Sandoval is found to have permitted illegal trading between French and Indians in Spanish territory. The French should definitely abandon any presidios built within Spanish territory and return to Nachitos, talk of war with the French if they donot do so peacefully. Aguardiente and wine trade with the French is questioned. English are found to be trading with the apachilinos and the Samases on Santa Rosa Island. Ff. 146 - 147 is a relacion that orders meeting of guerra and hacienda to resolve whether; Escolta is needed on San Pedro River to observe French activities; a mapping engineer is needed to assist governor in defining boundaries; peaceful or forceful removal of French is needed; Spanish troops should be moved to Adais presidio in case of forceful removal; 1/3 advance on pay be approved for soldiers to equip themselves with rations; French aguardiente and wine be allowed in moderation due to extreme Weather temperatures in region; all documents on this subject should be collected so as not to contradict any royal warrants concerning the French and Spanish boundaries; the governor of Texas should execute said relaciones. On ff. 150 the junta de guerra y hacienda is begun to resolve the aforementioned problems. (E. Wilson, November 1989)

Detailed military reports of Apache and Taraumara depredations around Durango (1788) including 1) damage descriptions, 2) results of hostilities, 3) steps taken to end depredations, 4) details of military movements. Relates Indian attack on armed exploratory group, robberies of silver, livestock, maize harvests, corn seeds, tools, guns and cloaks. Mentions kidnapping of women, murders and flayings, needless scattering of seeds and wasteful killing of livestock (thus sharpening food shortage). Notes drought. Detailed description of incident in which unidentified Indian group traps women in a house, sets house on fire, and strips those trying to escape. Cites village abandonment and disruption of carbon and seed trade routes as corregidor grants license to exterminate Indians. Notes Spanish burning and flaying of Taraumara captives. Virrey emphasizes need to increase confidence and hope in vecinos to avoid further depopulation; orders publication of Bando to this effect. Virrey also suggests reopening of military post at Noria to help defend Babonoyaba. Military concerns include augmentation of regular army by hacienda, Vecino and Indian auxiliaries. Special mention of Rancho owners supplying armed, mounted men for retaliation purposes. Attempt to set up efficient vecino-based campaign fails because of 1) laziness of vecinos and 2)sluggishness and ineffective leadership of Cassanova. Compania de dragones established for insolvents. Detailed record of inter-presidial troop movements. Precise numerical record of troop sizes and casualties. Repeated citation of failure to track Indians or to re-obtain stolen goods. Unsuccessful tracking blamed on tracks obscured by rain and laziness of vecinos. In general, documents in chronological order with a lot of content repitition due to sequential placement of original and copy. (S. Gibbs February, 1988)