They formerly proposed the clerks whom they employed in their offices, so that the governor should appoint them at the pay that was assigned. In consequence of that power that they possessed, the accountant tried to take it upon himself to dismiss a clerk without any agreement with his associates, or the consent of the government. In fact, he abolished the position. I was informed that it was not for incompetency, or for any failure of which the clerk had been guilty in his office, but only for the accountant's own private reasons. He was ordered to return the man to his place, and to have him serve as before. The accountant alleged with too unmeasured language that he and his associates had the authority to dismiss the clerks, since they were the ones who proposed them. I was advised that it would be better government, in order to avoid the consequences, for the royal officials not to propose the clerks whom they had to employ in their offices, except in the memorial of the person who enters it, petitioning that they give information of his competency. Accordingly, I so provided; and therefore, so long as the clerks give satisfaction, it must not be understood that the royal officials can dismiss them without having information of demerits understood by the government--which is the agency to dismiss such men, as it was the one to hire them. [_In the margin_: "Ascertain what the royal officials write; and, if they have not written, let them report." "Search was made, and all the papers on the matter collected, together with those sections and letters which the royal officials have written."] [_Sixth point of this letter_]