Calh. Corresp., 976-80, 991. Siglo XIX, Jan. 14, 1844. London Times, Sept. 9; Dec. 6, 1845; Oct. 8, 1846; Jan. 8, 1847. Memoria de. . . Relaciones, Dec., 1846 (Lafragua). 73Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 316, res., 346, 371, res., 445. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 128. 75Relaciones, circulars to govs., Oct. 9; Dec. 17, 1846; circs, nos. 233, 238, 255, 1846. 75aHacienda, circulars, Oct. 10; Nov. 9; Dec. 5, 31, 1846. 86V. Cruz state treas. to gov., Jan. 11; Feb. 4, 1847. Constitutionnel, Dec. 18, 1846. Wash. Union, Jan. 18, 29; May 11, 1847. Monitor, Oct. 12. 166Pommarès to Conner, Oct. 7, 1846. Republicano, Oct. 22; Nov. 5, 13, 24; Dec. 8, 1846; Jan. 23, 1847. Monitor Repub., Sept. 25, 30; Oct. 18; Nov. 19, 30; Dec. 19, 1846. Diario, Sept. 23, 25, 29; Oct. 2, 3; Nov. 21, 23; Dec. 4, 13, 15, 21, 29, 30, 1846; Jan. 1, 7-9, 1847. México á través, iv, 589, 600, 628-9. 76S. Anna, Nov. 7, 9, 19; Dec. 3, 4, 7, 30, 1846; Jan. 1, 2, 4, 7, 1847. 76J. Alvarez, Sept. 30, 1846. 76Circ. to comtes. gen., Sept. 28, 1846.
7. The law was a compromise (Apuntes, 124). Rejón, as he frankly told the Spanish minister (note 6), was for nationalizing — i.e., confiscating — the property of the Church. Santa Anna preferred to let the clergy keep the title to their wealth, and require a loan from them now and then — a process termed "milking" (Jameson, Calhoun Corresp., 992). The essential basis on which the law passed was the practical necessity of raising money for the war; but many who recognized this necessity and even the desirability of reducing the wealth and power of the Church could not bring themselves to act.
8. The law, if fully enforced, would no doubt have done much injury, however great its benefits. E.g., a great amount of land had been hypothecated to the Church with no expectation on either side that the loan which it secured would ever be paid; but the government, in order to obtain cash, intended that the loan should be paid or the land sold. Many individuals would thus have been ruined and the agricultural interests partially crippled, while on account of the small amount of money in circulation, only very low prices would have been realized for the land (13Bankhead, no. 7, 1847). Moreover, land with a Church curse upon it was sure to sell slowly, and many believed that titles obtained in this way would not hold good very long. As the clergy would give no information about their property, some exempted property was seized, and these mistakes caused trouble (México á través, iv, 631). Many objected to the law because they presumed that the proceeds of sales would reach private pockets. The principal arguments against it were summed up by the 88ayuntamiento of Córdoba as follows: "It attacks property, invades the rights of the states, contravenes the sovereignty of the Church and is anti-religious, for there can be no religion without worship, no worship without priests and no priests without Church property." On the other hand the Puro 92ayuntamiento of the capital described the law as "A law to save our independence and religion, in which nothing is done except that one class of society is to loan its property to society as a whole," adding, "How unfortunate would be our faith, if the religion of the Savior could be supported only with money. . . charity and poverty were the example of his mission." The metropolitan chapter of Mexico took the ground that property once consecrated to God was sacred, and that to take it would be an act of sacrilege sure to bring upon the country the wrath and punishment of heaven (92Representación). The bishop of Puebla said to his flock: "Far from us is the idea of disturbing public