Vaamonde recounts loyal service history as justification for appointment to new position, as unemployment has left him in state of poverty. Includes short account of defense of canary islands from British, construction of fort at San Blas, and disciplining of batallion of Spanish and Indian auxiliaries stationed at San Blas. On page beginning with siguiendo aquello de apeles (folios unnumbered), detailed account of torture ritual and cannibalism practiced by unnamed group of Indians in Nuevo Leon. Spanish victims kidnapped from area around Sayula are tied to stake and burned with branding irons while dance called mitote is performed. Skull cap of victim is removed, and dead bodies are eaten. Vaamonde's campaign against these Indians is recounted, as well as quelling of uprising in 1783 of escaped prisoners, headed by notorious pirate Lorencillo, in Guadalajara. Vaamonde seeks position as governor of Nuevo Santander, intendente of San Luis Potosi, or sargento mayor de Mexico. (A. Tukey, January 1989).

Letter speaks of a peace plan with Comanches, the first part a meeting of three Comanche captains with governor of Texas governor of Luisiana would like to know the particulars of this meeting and what and how much was given to the Comanches in the form of bribes or keepsakes, Ugalde wants to highlight the contradictions in this effort, mentions that they are the only remaining cannibalistic tribe, and cites information found in correspondence of governor of Texas to underline the violent nature of the Comanches and their history of being the most obstinate of the enemies of the Spanish, sees little hope in a peace plan with them, contrasts the character of the Comanches with that of the Apache Lipanes, group that most involves itself with the church, have fought against the Apache Mescaleros and thereby pleased the Spanish, Ugalde expresses concerns that peace with Comanches under very favorable terms will incite the jealousy of other tribes as well as a reexamination of their status, cites the lack of a mechanism to enforce compliance from Comanches as a drawback to proposed peace (Spanish have never entered Comanche territory to punish past hostilities for example). Feels that free transit of Comanches would be used to their benefit in further hostilities, thinks that verification of captives being held by Comanches should be part of the plan, accuses the makers of the plan of using trade provisions to enhance their own commerce and feels that a black market will be the result, questions the ability of enforcing compliance to a treaty provision that will have the Comanches establish their intertribal relations on the Basis of the ones followed by the Spanish, sees little motivation to expect the Comanches to declare themselves enemies of Apaches as treaty provides. Treaty will allow them to have their internal taxes, would like more intelligence of when Indian groups enter area near San Pedro for carneadas so Spanish can be prepared for unexpected occurrences, thinks that the alliance that would ensue between Lipanes and Mescaleros would create a force that would offset the untenable peace that will have been established with the Comanches, Ugalde mentions the progress he is making in the reduction of Mescaleros precisely because they are not Allied. In regard to provision that states that as long as Comanches are Allied with Spanish they will receive gratificaciones Ugalde argues that in the past those periods of greatest hostility with Comanches were usually preceeded by periods in which this transfer of goods was high. Mentions arms in this matter. In summing up Ugalde mentions law that forbids people to show Indians their trade and also forbids them to live in their houses with the penalty being 100 pesos or upon the discretion of virrey exile. Has questions about how to determine what faction of Comanches in the future will be committing the hostilities because of the size of the group and the varied interests that each group has. (O. Velez, October 1989)

Extensive ethnographic information on Indians of Coahuila. Divides them into four major groups (parrialidades). Discusses material culture, architecture, seasonal movements, subsistence patterns, personality (warlike, lazy), and mentions war-related cannibalism. Notes that the Texas Indians in contrast, have government and agriculture. (R. Perez) (1977)