defrauding the native-born citizens of their rights.


Ninth Point

_That the royal decrees prohibiting trade with the Filipinas are
not observed, chiefly on account of the opinion of Doctor Sacedo,
a citizen of Mexico, that the violation of royal decrees involves
the penalty thereof, but is not a mortal sin. Thus the citizens
of Mexico may carry on commerce in the Filipinas, and those of the
Filipinas may invest money which is sent to them, without burdening
their consciences, or being obliged to make restitution._

The opinion of Doctor Juan de Sacedo, a citizen of Mexico, replying to
the decree of January 11, 93, states that this decree does not show
clearly, and with the explicit statement necessary, that it was his
Majesty's intention to bind strictly to an eternal punishment those on
whom he imposes a pecuniary penalty; or that by its transgression are
obligations to make restitution laid, in conscience, _ipso jure non
expectata judicis sententia_, upon the people of Mexico who trade with
the islands, or consign their property to citizens of Manila--either
goods sent in exchange for the merchandise of the latter, or money
which they remit to these--although both of these are prohibited. If
these things are conceded, they make a profit and have the means of
support. The reply thereto is incumbent upon his Majesty, from whom
the decree emanated. Until his Majesty shall make further declaration,
the decree is purely a penal ordinance, and nothing more. It involves
only the penalty and condemnation to which the transgressor is exposed,
and does not burden the conscience with mortal sin or restitution. For
that, it is necessary that there be an explicit declaration--one