Lay Magistrates and the Administration of Justice in Mexico City, 1840s–50s

Both before and after Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, lay magistrates (alcaldes) played an important role in the administration of justice. During the First Federalist Republic, lay magistrates in the capital, and in most of the states of the republic as well, decided certain criminal and civil cases, including small claims cases and cases involving minor criminal infractions. Lay magistrates were also the principal authorities charged with implementing mandatory conciliation. Mandatory conciliation before a lay magistrate was required of all civil plaintiffs prior to pursuing an ordinary civil action before a legally trained judge (juez letrado). This requirement was intended to reduce the high costs and long delays associated with civil litigation as practiced during the colonial period, essentially by providing parties in conflict the opportunity to settle out of court at much lower cost. However, during the Second Federalist Republic the judicial functions of lay magistrates were significantly curtailed. Eventually, these functions were eliminated, not just in Mexico City, but in the rest of Mexico as well. This paper explores the reasons given by contemporaries for (and against) these reforms as they played out in Mexico City. Its main focus, however, is on the effectiveness of mandatory conciliation as this was practiced by lay magistrates. Did mandatory conciliation really reduce the costs of justice (and increase its speed) as originally intended? Finally, the paper formulates several hypotheses about the suppression of these judicial functions and their possible consequences for the economic life of the city.