The fourth instance of litigation was in regard to the question whether he was to be entitled "auditor of accounts" [_contador de cuentas_] or "auditor-arranger of accounts" [_contador ordenador de cuentas_]. The royal officials claimed that it should be the second, saying that the name "auditor of accounts" belongs only to those of the three tribunals of Lima, Santa Fe, and Mexico, according to the provision of August 24, 605, and the ordinances therein cited. The auditor of accounts claimed that this name belongs to him by virtue of his office, and because he has always been so called. The ordinances give him that name, as appears by ordinance forty-two given above, and in the warrants despatched by the governors. The Audiencia decreed an act February 14, 626, ordering that he shall not be called "auditor of accounts," but "auditor-arranger of accounts of the royal treasury;" since the auditing of the accounts does not belong to him, but only the arranging of them, so that the president and auditors, the judges of the accounts, may audit them, and conclude and remit them, as is ordained. Thus was he styled until the visitor altered it. The last and most acrimonious lawsuit was in regard to the form of the sworn relation which the royal officials must give to the auditor of accounts, in order that he may audit the general accounts of each year. Upon this point arose the charge in the visit, the examination of which was the cause of my being ordered to compile this paper. In that contention, the royal officials have claimed that they do not need to give a sworn statement of the amounts that ought to be collected; but that the auditor of accounts must charge himself with that duty in the general account of each year. In case that the royal officials have to give a sworn statement, [they claim] that it is to be only of the debts incurred during their time; and that they do not need to give a general sworn statement, but only a statement of those kinds of royal revenue which are received into that treasury, and are current through their administration--and not of other things which, although they belong to his Majesty, do not enter into that treasury; and which are disbursed before they enter it, and pass through other hands. They allege that in these islands a very different account of the royal revenue is usual from that furnished in other provinces. They availed themselves, for all three points of this claim, of the same sections of the ordinances on which the charge was founded, namely, the sections 14 and 22 of "tribunals of accounts, the decree of the year 605," and section 20 of the decree of the year 60 [_sic_] explanatory of the tribunals--which, copied word for word, are as follows: