New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-12-05
DOM PEDRO.
Il Note on HIS Relation to Brazilian
abolition.

To the Editor of The Tribune
SIR; In recent issue you published an extract
from Sir Frederick st. Johns "reminiscences of
MS diplomatic career. The extract relates to Dom
Pedro IL the Emperor of Brazil and the part
taken by him in the abolition Of slavery and reads:
49, 20 e4ancIpate every slave his vast estates,
Wreeitbiss+h ne converted himself from one of the
onIlst3endom; and he subsequently enacted a Law
aGSeoTT9lhg to which every child of slave parena
should be born free-a measure which contributes
eve eventuaIIy to his deposition ard expulsion from
Ine country, SO great the resentment felt
against him by the wealthy planters of both coffee
Dom Pedro succeeded to the throne in 1881. and
began his reign IN 1910. In his fifteenth year He
mad no vast estates and owned but few slaves
consequently he could not have been one Of the
WeaIthiest Dotentates of Christendon Later in
life his annual salary of 100000 lreis 4s6 800 when
the currency was at par with gold which rarely
happened barely suficed to meet his current ex-
penses and the pensions he voluntarily assumed
and when he was deposed he had nothing saved
Tor his support. He very truly one of the poor
est sovereigns of Christendom. The Petropos and
Santa Cruz estates, which belonged to him could
not have yielded much. and [ know of nothing else
that could have added TO his income
Now for his record in the abolition of slavery.
he emancipated the few slaves he possessed on
October 16, 1864 on the occasion of the marriage
OF his oldest daughter Princess Isabel to the
Comte d Eu This twenty-four years after
the beginning Of his reign. The slaves belonging
to the state were given their freedom by the free
birth law of September 49, 1871. The final and com
plete abolition Of slavery occurred May 49, 1888
The free birth law Of 1871 often called the Rio
Branco law, introduced by the Visconde do
Rio Branco, and voted by the General AS
sembly after long and sharply contested debate
The Emperor had authority to enact such
law. and he did not even sign it. He was absent
In Europe at the time, and his daughter as Prin-
cess Regent. signed the decree. The law worked
unsatisfactory, and especially in regard to the
ingenuos, as the free children of slave mothers
were called, who to be held in bondage until
twenty-one years of age.
The final act Of emancipation in which the pres
ent Brazilian Ambassador to this country, DR..
Joaquin Nabuco. took an early and leading part,
occurred in 1888 The Emperor was absent in
Europe al that time also and the abolition decree
was signed by the Princess Regent. It has been
said that the Emperor purposely absented himself
on both of these occasions, that his daughter
might have the honor and glory Of signing the
emancipation DEGREES, but of this have no knowl-
edge.
His personal attitude toward abolition was to me
a matter Of constant uncertainty and perplexity
He often said and did things that inspired every
aboltonist with the hope that he would champion
their cause and promote the immediate extinction
of slavery, and then he would turn around and act
in direct opposition to such an aspiration On one
public occasion that remember he said he hoped
to the time when the last slave would disap-
pear from Brazil; and then a few days later when
visited by some worried coffee planters who feared
the effects of his previous utterance, he soothed
them with the assurance that vested interests
would be disturbed
1 have never been able 20 reconcile these con
fiicting attitudes but they may be explained, per-
haps, by the character of the man himself. He was
liberal spirited many sided, sympathetic and
generous hearted man. Ills Syrnpath1eS were easily
aroused. and he had many of them that it was
sometimes difficult to make them harmonic. | be
Iieve that he thoroughly in sympathy with
the of abolition and that in all Brazil
profoundly gratined over the law of 1888
than he was At the same time he heartily SYM
pathized with the planters who were facing a
dustries, and he wanted TO guard them against 1t.
if possible Between the two his policy sometimes
seemed unsatisfactory and vaciatng. but that
may be because was not in possession of all the
facts.
It is unquestionably true that the abolition law
of 1855 embittered the planters against the crown
and contributed to the overthrow Of the monarchy,
though that law enacted by a general assembly
elected by the people themselves. Some of the
leading advocates Of abolition at the last moment
were wealthy planters, while the other hand,
there is no evidence that the exercised the
slightest pressure on the assembly to SECURE the
enrichment Of the law A J. LAMOUREUA
Irnaca n Y. Nov y,