with the aid of thirty-six naval officers and half a dozen con-
gressmen, Señor de Mello took possession of some of the vessels of
the fleet and began the rebellion which is now tarnishing the
good name of Brazil.
This rebellion has been prolific of manifestoes; they break
forth in all directions. We have them from Señors Mello and
Saldanha da Gama by turns proclaiming to the public their pur-
poses and programmes, modifying them or denying them ; we
have them even from Ruy Barbosa, who after stirring up anarchy
in Brazil, and teaching disrespect for the institutions he helped to
create, is now in a foreign country engaged in slandering his
own, and serving as the mouthpiece of the rebellion.
Señor de Mello in his first two manifestoes declared that his pur-
pose was to restore the supremacy of the republican constitution,
to overthrow military dominion, and to restore peace and credit to
Brazil. He accused the president of violating the constitution in
various ways, among which he made prominent the veto of a bill
in relation to the presidential election, attributing the veto to the
alleged desire of Señor Peixoto for re-election. It is curious that
instead of appealing to the ballot-box, in which under the repub-
lican form of government, the remedy for all political evils should
be sought,—particularly since the election for the second Congress
was to take place, at the end of October last ; and in the begin-
ning of next March the presidential election will be held,—the
rebel chief should propose to introduce into politics new methods
of restoring violated constitutions, and should attempt to bring
back peace and credit by cannon shots, and to destroy military
dominion by military violence.
The charge in regard to the motives of the veto has no real
foundation. In the opinion of a journal of the opposition the
President could not have approved the bill in question, because
its fifth article contained a twofold violation of the Constitution :
in the first place, because it extended to the office of vice-presi-
dent the ineligibility which the constitution limited to that of
president; and secondly, because it extended to the entire presi-
dential term the ineligibilty of the vice-president who had
served as president, whereas, by the constitution it is limited to
him who has thus served in the last year of the presidential term.
It is the bill, then, that was unconstitutional, while the veto
rests on the express declarations of the constitution. Besides
