But the Mexican patriots, who had been fighting for ten years in favor of independence, material progress, and liberal principles, could not be satisfied with the success of their former enemies and the establishment of an empire. They thought that this was depriving the country and themselves of the fruits of their victory, and so they rebelled against Iturbide and inaugurated a revolution which finally overthrew the empire and made Iturbide fly from the country after a reign of about ten months. After that, was renewed the old hostility between the two parties-the Liberal party, which had been the promoter of independence and desired progress, and the Conservative or Church party, which intended to maintain the status quo, and was decidedly averse to any changes. It is not strange that the conflict between these two parties, representing such antagonistic ideas, should have lasted so long.

After Iturbide's downfall, the Liberals summoned a national congress, which issued, on January 31, 1824, the preliminary basis of a Federal Constitution, and on October 4, of the same year, the Constitution itself was finally adopted and promulgated. It was patterned after the Constitution of the United States and was almost a copy of it, and I do not know whether, in imitating so closely the institutions of this country, we did not make a mistake. The constitution of a nation should be adapted to the conditions of that country. Here, in the northern section of the continent, there were at the end of last century thirteen colonies independent from each other, which made war against England, achieved their independence, and then found themselves little more than a confederacy of infantile nations, with all the weaknesses which ever have attended a simple confederation. They, therefore, decided to consolidate them. selves into a strong nation, under the name of "The United States of America." The federal system of government was the only solution of the problems which confronted then the people of this country. It was the natural and inevitable outgrowth of the condition of things existing before the adoption of the Constitution. In Mexico, there was a united country, subject to the same authorities and laws, and with only one head. In adopting a republican federal system there, the nation had to be artificially divided up into separate sections, to be called states, which had no separate existence before, and no individual history or experience in self-government. It is not to be wondered at, therefore,

that when this constitution went into operation, it caused great disturbance. It is easy to find in this fact one of the causes of our prolonged civil wars. We were not alone in suffering such misfortunes, for almost every other nation on this continent following in our footsteps, tried to adapt the republican-federal system to a condition of things to which it was not suited. Brazil alone escaped this period of turmoil and experiment by establishing an empire, with a scion of the reigning house of Portugal on the throne, and by not adopting a federal-republican form of government until nearly a century later, after the people had acquired some ideas of self-government, and some capacity for carrying it out; and it is probably for these reasons that she has suffered less by civil commotions than any other country of similar origin in this hemisphere.

case

Our Constitution of 1824 was a decided victory for the Liberal party, but very far from being a final one. The Church party, though then defeated, was really the stronger of the two during the early years of independent Mexico. The Liberal victory did not last long, and the Conservative or Church party prevailed upon some of Mexico's numerous military leaders to rebel against the government and inaugurate a series of revolutions, which ended in 1835 in the overthrow of the Constitution of 1824. The military leaders began to play a very important part in public affairs. One of the worst effects of a successful revolution is that it sanctions the principle that brutal force shall prevail, and gives rise to personal ambition of unscrupulous and successful soldiers. One instance of this result is the of General Santa Anna, of Mexico. He was an ambitious, unprincipled, selfish man, who sided with all the parties and deceived them all. He was a successful military leader in an irregular guerilla warfare, but had no ability as a soldier. He fought with the Spanish army against the independent cause up to 1821, when he went over to Iturbide when he joined the independent leaders; in 1822 he rebelled against Iturbide and proclaimed a Federal Republic, and in 1834 he abolished the Federal Constitution of 1824, and established a military dictatorship. From 1822 to 1855 he actually had the fate of Mexico in his hands, having been President five different times, but never did any good to the country, excepting his readiness to take part in our foreign war. He began his political career as a Radical Lib

eral, and ended it as the most reactionary leader of the Church party. He often was very easily discouraged and more than once fled from the country, forsaking a power which he might have wielded longer, showing that he lacked tenacity of purpose. But such an instance as this does not show, as a superficial observer might be disposed to believe, that the struggle was only on account of personal ambition of unscrupulous military leaders, as what really happened was that the political parties used these leaders for their convenience, and had, of course, to share the power with them.

When the Church party had the ascendency, they repealed the Federal Constitution of 1824, and on October 23, 1835, they issued some bases for a new constitution, which was finally proclaimed on December 29, 1836, under the title of Constitutional Laws, which abolished the federal system of government, and several of the liberal features of the Federal Constitution of 1824. The Constitutional Laws of 1836 did not seem to be conservative enough for the Church party, and they issued, on June 13, 1843, what was called the "Organic Bases"—a more conservative constitution.

As the Church party was so rich and so strong, and had so much influence in the country, it could very easily have brought about a civil war of such seriousness as would have been very difficult for the Liberal side to overcome; but, as time elapsed, the Liberal party, which really represented the patriotic element of the country, grew stronger with education and contact with foreign nations, and was materially assisted in its task by the demoralization of the clergy and their unpatriotic conduct during our foreign wars-as, besides our civil wars, we had, in 1828, a war against Spain, who sent an expedition to reconquer Mexico; in 1838, a war with France; in 1846 and 1847 a war with the United States, and from 1861 to 1867, the war of the French intervention. It was not difficult, therefore, for the Liberal party to inaugurate in their turn a counterrevolution, which was at last successful, and which finally restored them to power. It was in that way that the period of our civil wars continued for so long, and that we came to have so many different constitutions.

Finally, on May 18, 1847, the Federal Constitution of 1824 was restored, with some amendments, and the Liberal party

regained power, which they kept until 1853, when Santa Anna returned to Mexico, called back by a successful revolution of the Church party, and established a dictatorship of the most reactionary kind. But the Liberals rebelled against him in 1854, proclaiming the plan of Ayutla, and in 1855 Santa Anna fled from the country, because the Church in whose interest he was administering the government would not give him the money he required. to carry out the war. A federal government was then established under General Alvarez first, and General Comonfort afterwards. General Alvarez appointed Benito Juarez Secretary of Justice, and on November 23, 1855, Juarez issued the first law against the clergy which deprived them of the civil privileges they were enjoying. Under the Spanish rule, and also after the independence of Mexico, up to that date, the clergy had special courts made up of clergymen, to try them for any offence that they might commit. This was a privilege which insured them almost perfect immunity and exempted them from the control of the laws of the country. The Liberals thought that that was a great outrage, but they could not change that condition of things until the Juarez law of 1855. The army enjoyed similar privileges, of which the Juarez law deprived them by restricting the jurisdiction of military courts to only military offences.

Juarez was a most remarkable man. He was a full-blooded Indian, born in a small town inhabited only by Indians, and where there was but one man-the parish priest-who spoke Spanish and could read and write. Juarez was so anxious to learn Spanish and to acquire an education, that he offered his services as a domestic to the priest, under condition that he should be taught. The priest found him so intelligent that he sent him to the adjoining city of Oaxaca to be educated. From such humble beginnings he rose to be a prominent lawyer and a foremost statesman. He was, at different times, Secretary of State of his own state, Member of the State Legislature, State Senator, Governor of his state for several terms, Representative to the Federal Congress, Secretary of Justice and of the Interior, Chief Justice, Vice-President, and finally President of the Republic. His principal characteristics were his profound conviction of liberal principles, his very clear mind, his remarkably good common sense, his great moral courage, his unimpeached integrity and

honesty, his great patriotism, his tenacity of purpose and devotion to civil government. In time of war, when the destinies of the country were in his hands and often depended on the result of a battle, and when many others in his place would have led an army, he purposely abstained from exercising any military duties. These he left entirely to those of his associates who had shown talent for war, and he himself set the example of a purely civil government. He had as much personal courage as any man in the world. I saw him more than once facing death as near and sure as any man ever did, with perfect calmness and almost indifference, but without bravado. I am sure he felt that it is best for a patriot to die in the service of his country, because in that case he wins for himself immortality, and on this theory I account for the fact that he was never afraid to die if he died while in the performance of a patriotic duty.*

The Juarez law was succeeded by the Lerdo law, which provided that no corporation-meaning the clergy, as the church was the only corporation existing in Mexico-could hold real estate, and that such as was held then by any corporation should be sold to the actual tenants at a price which was to be arrived at by capitalizing the rent on the basis of six per cent. rate of interest. Thereafter, the tenant was to be the owner of the property, the corporation retaining a mortgage equal to the price fixed in this way. These two laws were the cause of two other insurrections promoted by the church and subdued by President Comonfort.

Our present Federal Constitution of February 5th, 1857, had been issued during the administration of Comonfort, and he had just taken the oath to support it, and under it he had been elected Constitutional President for a term of four years, beginning on December 1, 1857, and on the 17th of that month he rebelled against the constitution he had just sworn to support.

* Mr. Seward's estimate of the character of Juarez, shows how the Anglo-Saxon was impressed by the little Indian. When Mr. Seward visited Mexico on his trip around the world, he was heartily welcomed by my country, and in a remarkable speech that he made in the City of Puebla, he said that Juarez was the greatest man that he had ever met in his life. His speech was taken down in shorthand, and Mr. Thomas H. Nelson, of Terre Haute, Ind, then United States Minister to Mexico, noticing this phrase and thinking that in the excitement of the moment Mr. Seward had gone further than he intended and further than he would like to have repeated after a sober second thought, took it to Mr. Seward and said to him, "Governor, will you be willing to stand by what you said in your speech, about Juarez being the greatest man you ever knew? Remember that you have been the peer and contemporary of Webster, Clay, Calhoun, and many other distinguished men of our country, and that you place Juarez above them all. Mr. Seward answered, "What I said about Juarez was after mature consideration, and I am willing to stand by my opinion." This statement has been submitted to General Nelson and found correct by him.-M. R.