On January 17 1821, when Moses Austin was given permission by the Spanish authorities to introduce three hundred families into Texas, that Spanish colonial possession was a wilderness except for roving ,lndian tribes, some monastic settlements, Spanish soldiers, and a few American squatters.1 Austin died soon after the favorable answer to his petition, and the work of carrying out the enterprise fell to his son, Stephen F. Austin.2 Shortly after the latter's arrival in Texas in 1822, he was told by the Spanish governor at Bexar of the Mexican revolution, and was advised to go to Mexico and get the concession confirmed. Austin had no sooner arrived in Mexico than another change in government occurred, by which Don Augustin Iturbide made himself emperor. A colonization law was enacted January 24, 1823, and on February 18, 1823, the emperor affirmed by decree Austin's grant. A revolution soon overthrew Iturbide, however, and it devolved upon Austin to secure from the newly established federal government a confirmation of his concession. This was obtained April 14, 1823, and Austin then returned to Texas to organize his colony. Other empresarios also obtained grants conformable to the colonization laws, and the influx of Americans into Texas began.3

Texas and Coahuila were one state in the Mexican federal system, and a state constitution was adopted March 11, 1827. This constitution remained in effect until March 2, 1836, when the Texans declared their independence of Mexico.

1 In 1820 the estimated population, exclusive of Indians, was 4,000; Garrison, Texas, p. 124.

2 Stephen F. Austin's account of the beginnings of this colony is reprinted in Gammel, Laws of Texas. Vol. I. See also Wooten, A Comprehensive History of Texas, vol. I, pp. 439-493.

3 An estimate of the population in 1827 is 10,000 exclusive of Indians; Garrison, Texas, p. 136.

The finances and financial arrangements of this period of Texas history are very obscure.1

It appears from the laws and decrees that the revenue came from tithes,2 excise,3 stamp,4 and customs duties:5 and from taxes on income6 and on the export of coin and silver bullion.7 Other sources were the sale of the right of cock pit locations,8 the monopoly of the sale of tobacco,9 and taxes on billiard tables,10 on the slaughtering of stock.11 and the capturing of mustangs and wild cattle.12 Forced loans also were employed on occasions.13

From most of these taxes the new American settlements were exempt for a period of from six to ten years.14 Exemption from certain taxes was given subsequently to the Spanish settlements also, on the ground that the dutiable articles were necessities, or that the taxes would burden agriculture.1

1 The Mexican archives in the City of Mexico and the Bexar archives at the University of Texas may when investigated throw light on the period. In the meantime, as one writer has said, "one is puzzled to know whence came the revenues of Texas while a part of the Mexican confederacy"; E. C. Barker, "The Finances of the Texas Revolution,' in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. 19, p. 612.

2 Decree No. 34; Gammel, op. cit, vol. 1, p. 200. Decree No. 238; ibid., p. 332.

3 Decree No. 14; ibid., p. 124. Decree No. 85; ibid., p. 228. Decree No. 107; ibid., p. 247. Decree No. 202; ibid,, p. 310.

4 Decree No. 11; ibid., p. 120.

5 Decree No. 94; ibid., p. 241.

6 Decree No. 90; ibid., p. 233.

7 Decree No. 79; ibid., p. 224. Decree No. 209; ibid., p. 313.

8 Decree No. 2; ibid., p. 173.

9 Decree No. 15; ibid., p. 124.

10Decree No. 2; ibid., p. 173. Decree No. 169; ibid., p. 286.

11Decree No. 279; ibid., p. 381.

12Decree No. 8; ibid., p. 178.

13Decree No. 105; ibid., p. 245. Decree No. 171; ibid., p. 288. Decree No. 305; ibid., p. 404.

"Colonization law of 1823, articles 24 and 25; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 30. This law controlled Austin's colony, and provided for an exemption for six years. The colonization law of March 24, 1825, and the decree of February 9, 1828. governed the other colonies, and provided for an exemption for ten years; ibid., pp. 130, 207.

No mention is made in the laws and decrees of a direct tax on land. Land dues, however, were probably an important source of revenue. The state colonization law provided that new settlers should pay as dues to the state $30 for each sitio of pasture land, $3.50 for each irrigable labor, and $2.50 for each non-irrigable labor.2

All the colonists were required to pay land dues, and were subject also to stamp taxes on legal documents giving title to property.3 The tobacco monopoly was in force throughout all the colonies. Six years after its beginning, customs duties became applicable to Austin's colony and were immediately applied. They irritated the colonists, as is shown by the friction in 1830 at Anahuac between the citizens and the customs' officials, and by the petition to the General Congress from the convention which met at San Felipe de Austin, October 1, 1830.4 This petition represented that the tariff then in effect was so high as to be equivalent to a total prohibition, and it asked for the privilege of introducing free of duty for three years indispensable articles, such as provisions, farming implements, tools, cotton bagging, household and kitchen furniture, clothing, shoes, hats, powder and shot.5

There is much obscurity also as to what were the fiscal machinery and methods employed during this period. The collection of stamp taxes was in Austin's colony in the hands of Austin himself, and returns were made by him to the commissioner appointed by the governor of the state.6 After the organization of an ayuntamiento, or elective town council, in this and the other colonies, this body performed in connection with its other duties those of a fiscal character.1

1 Maize, beans, and pepper were exempt from excise duties. Decree No. 14; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 186. Raw cotton, horses, cattle, and smaller stock, and sugar plantations, vineyards, and the products thereof were exempt tor twelve years. Decrees Nos. 176 and 298; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 291, 396.

2 Article 22; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 43. A labor was about 200 acres, a sitio about 4,400 acres.

3 Decree No. 43; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 207.

4 Edna Rowe, "The Disturbances at Anahuac in 1832," in The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, vol. 6, pp. 265-299. Also Garrison, Texas, p. 176.

5 Proceedings of the Convention; Gammel, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 485.

6 Ibid., p. 18.

There were excise agencies in the departments, and receivers' offices in the municipalities. The excise agent in some cases sold the tobacco and stamped paper.2 These agents and the receivers of the customs were appointed by the governor. Returns were made by them to the state treasurer who, in turn, made his report to the governor; and the governor, in turn, communicated it to congress. This body fixed the amount of taxes to be raised, according to the estimate of the expenditures presented by the governor.3

The revenue during this period was inadequate to meet the wants of the state government. Complaints are frequent in the laws and decrees of the "reduced state of the treasury," and offices were discontinued from time to time owing to the insufficiency of public means.4

The period is not important for any influence exerted upon subsequent periods. The fiscal organization was of a character foreign to the Americans, and was not continued by them when control passed into their hands. It could not be employed during the Revolution, and new expedients for raising revenue had to be found. The revenue from taxes must have been inconsiderable during this period, in view of the exemptions granted. Except for the years when the tariff was in effect taxation could not have been very burdensome, and there is little evidence that it was one of the causes of the Revolution.5

1 Article 23 of the colonization law of 1825; ibid., p. 102.

2 Decree No. 132; ibid., p. 259.

3 Decree No. 11; ibid., p. 184.

4 Decree No. 50; ibid., p. 211. Decree No. 144; ibid., p. 266. 5Burnet, who was president ad interim, said in a message of October 4, 1836, "the experience pf the nation from which we have descended affords abundant testimony of the pernicious consequences of an overcharged tariff"; House Journal, 1st Tex. Cong., First Session, p. 15. This statement and the petition of the general convention which met at San Felipe de Austin throw light on the character of the Mexican tariff. Although the tariff was not singled out for indictment at the time independence was declared, there is little doubt but that it was obnoxious enough to have exerted some influence

See for a general account of this period Barker, Potts, and Ramsdell, A School History of Texas, ch. 5.