of the constitution, though Webster showed conclusively that the constitution could not thus be made a territorial law. But he resisted the rider mainly on the score of prudence, acknowledging that it was parliamentary, and that he "could not say that, if you had a bill under consideration for abolishing flogging in the navy, you might not introduce an amendment declaring war with Great Britain." The house very ingeniously threw the onus back upon the senate, March 2. It did not reject the rider, but "concurred with the amendment" that the existing (Mexican) laws be continued in the territory until July 4, 1850, unless sooner superseded by organization. As the Mexican law forbade slavery, this would have fixed the status of the territory. After midnight of March 3, the adjournment day, the senate receded from its amendment, thus getting rid of the house amendment with it, and passed the appropriation bill without any rider. The dispersion of the Kansas legislature in July, 1856, by federal troops, under the president's order (see KANSAS), was at once brought up in congress, where the new republican party controlled the house (see REPUBLICAN PARTY, I.), while the senate was democratic. When the army appropriation bill came up, the house added to it a rider forbidding the employment of federal troops for the enforcement of the territorial laws of Kansas, and directing the president to protect persons and property, to keep the peace, to disarm the territorial militia, to prevent them from attempting to enforce the territorial laws, and to recall United States arms distributed in the territory. The senate rejected the amendments; both houses adhered to their position; and the time fixed for adjournment, Aug. 18, came, leaving the army bill still unpassed. The president, by proclamation, at once called a special session for Aug. 21. The house again added its rider, and the senate again rejected it. Finally the house yielded, and passed the bill without the rider by the close vote of 101 to 98; and it became law Aug. 30. The great volume of legislation required by the rebellion made this period prolific in riders. Thus, the validation of the president's acts and proclamations of 1861 (see HABEAS CORPUs), after failing as a separate bill, was added as a rider to an act to increase the pay of privates in the regular army, Aug. 6; and generally the words "and for other purposes" in the titles of bills become indicative of some hidden or open rider. None of these provoked special opposition, and they may be passed over. From the first appearance of the conflict of opinion between President Johnson and the majority in congress (see RECONSTRUCTION), it was evident that riders would play an important part. In the senate, May 2, 1866, a rider was attached to the post office appropriation bill, forbidding the payment of salaries to officers until their confirmation by the senate (see TENURE OF OFFICE); but this was subsequently reconsidered and rejected. During the next session the conflict became open, and in February, 1867, the army appropriation bill was passed with two important riders. The second section of the bill enacted that the orders of the president and secretary of war to the army should only be given through the general of the army (Gen. Grant); that the latter should not be relieved, removed or transferred from Washington without the previous approval of the senate; and that any officer who should transmit or obey orders, except through the general of the army, should be punishable by imprisonment for from two to twenty years. The sixth section ordered the immediate disbanding of the militia forces of the unreconstructed states. March 2, 1867, the president signed the bill, but protested against the riders, as attempts to deprive him of his functions as commander-in-chief, and ten states of their right to control their own militia, both of which were given by the constitution, not by congress. These sections were preliminary steps to the impeachment of Johnson. (See IMPEACHMENTS, VI.) — Jan. 13, 1868, while a bill to make five, instead of six, of the supreme court judges a quorum, a most important rider was added, providing that no decision against the constitutionality of a federal law should be valid without the concurrence of two-thirds of the judges therein. The senate did not consider it. There was no further important party contest in congress on riders (but see AMNESTY) until 1872. June 7, three days before final adjournment, Senator Kellogg, of Louisiana, suddenly moved to add to the civil appropriation bill a general election law, authorizing the oversight and control of elections by federal supervisors, which the senate had already passed, but which the democratic minority in the house was opposing with a probability of success. There are no rules in the senate to limit debate, but in the case of appropriation bills, and "such amendments as directly relate to the appropriations," the senate minority had agreed to limit each senator to five minutes' debate. The democratic senators alleged that the introduction of this amendment was a breach of faith; but the republican majority decided it to be germane. Sumner, under this ruling, endeavored also to get in his supplementary civil rights bill (see that title), but the senate rejected it, and passed the amendment. Much the same objection was made in the house, but after several conferences the amendment was adopted. It amended an act of Feb. 28, 1871, by allowing the appointment of federal supervisors of election in any county or congressional district where ten citizens should request it from the federal circuit judge, with the proviso that the supervisors appointed under it should "have no power or authority to make arrests," only to witness the election, the counting of the votes, and the making of the returns. The bill was thus passed, under a suspension of the rules, by a vote of 102 to 79, and in the senate by a vote of 39 to 17.- Feb. 24, 1873, an amendment was moved to the legislative appropriation bill, increasing the salary of the president to $50,000; those of the vice-president, supreme court justices, secretaries | eral election law, forbidding the payment of any money to supervisors, etc., and changing the grand jury law so as to have the list arranged by members of both political parties. The senate struck out all the riders; the two houses disagreed; the bills failed to pass; and both parties "appealed to the country" on the final adjournment. March 4, President Hayes called a special session of the new congress for March 18. Its meeting was the signal for a political tournament of about two months, in which the democrats declared their purpose to wipe out the remnants of war legislation, and the republicans charged their opponents with a design to "starve the government to death," since they had failed to "shoot it to death." The principal results of the session were the partial success of the democrats, the renewed support of the president by his party, and the recognition of Garfield as an unusually able party leader. The army bill was first passed with its rider, and was vetoed, April 30, on the grounds that there was plenty of time to pass both political bills and appropriation bills, and that the junction of the two was an attempt to coerce the president, and possibly, in the future, the senate also, and to enable the house to dictate permanently whatever legislation it might see fit to attach to appropriation bills. The democratic majority was but eight in the senate, and seven in the house; so that the bill was not passed over the veto. Another army appropriation bill, omitting the original rider, and substituting another forbidding the use of any money for the transportation or subsistence of troops for service at the polls in any state, was passed toward the end of the session, and approved June 23. The original rider had first been passed as a separate bill, and vetoed May 12. The executive, legislative and judicial appropriation bill, with its riders, was then passed, and was vetoed May 29. June 10-14, two appropriation bills were passed: the first, for the executive and legislative expenses, without any riders, was approved June 21; the second, for the courts alone, with the riders which had caused the veto of the whole bill, was vetoed June 23, on the grounds that there were but two proper methods of overthrowing existing legislation, by repeal, or through the courts, and that the riders simply forbade the executive to exccute laws yet unrepealed. July and speaker of the house to $10,000; and of the senators and representatives to $7,500 and traveling expenses. It passed both houses, and became law, March 3. The increase of salary to congressmen included the members of the congress which had voted it; and hence the increase, popularly known as "the salary grab," proved to be highly unpopular. (See SALARY GRAB.) - Feb. 25, 1865, an act, introduced by a democratic senator from Kentucky, became law. Originally it forbade, under penalties, the bringing of any troops to an election place in any state unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States," but the republican majority added thereto the words "or to keep the peace at the polls." In this form it became, in 1874, §§ 2002 and 5528 of the Revised Statutes. The general election law of May 30, 1870, amended Feb. 28, 1871, authorized the appointment, by federal circuit judges, of two supervisors of elections for congressmen, to personally count every ballot, but not, as above amended in 1872, to make arrests. Both of these provisions were disliked by the democrats, and they also complained of unfairness shown by clerks of federal courts in making up grand jury lists. During the session of 1876-7 the democratic majority in the house had passed the army appropriation bill with a rider forbidding the employment of the army in sustaining the reconstructed southern state governments. The senate refused to concur, and congress adjourned in March without passing the appropriation bill. The army was unpaid until, at the special session of Oct. 15, an army appropriation bill was passed without the rider. One section of the general election law allowed the marshal or his deputies, in case of resistance to arrest, to call in the posse comitatus to assist them; and in 1876 the attorney general decided that the federal troops might be summoned as a posse In 1878 a rider was added to the army appropriation bill, forbidding the use of federal troops as a posse, except in cases where it was expressly authorized by the constitution or by act of congress," and the bill was approved June 18, 1878. This initial success encouraged the democrats to attack the whole body of legislation above specified, in which was contained most of the legislation under which troops could still be employed. Their determination to do so was stimulated by the elec-1, congress adjourned, leaving the courts unprotions of 1878, which made it certain that the succeeding congress would be democratic in both branches. If the still republican senate should obstinately resist the riders, and force a special session after March, a concurrent house and senate would then be arrayed against the president alone, who had not hitherto had any effective support from his own party. (See HAYES, R. B.) The struggle began early in February, 1879. The house passed the army appropriation bill, with a rider re-enacting §§ 2002 and 5528, without the words "to keep the peace at the polls," and the legislative, executive and judicial appropriation bill, with riders repealing the essence of the gen vided for. It was suggested that the president should continue calling special sessions until congress was willing to pass an appropriation bill for the courts; but this extreme, though legitimate, measure was not put in force. The courts and court officers went unpaid until the following session, when the struggle was renewed in a milder form. The democrats passed a judiciary bill, with a proviso that special deputy marshals should be selected from the different political parties, and should be of good moral character. This was also vetoed May 4, 1880, as a bad precedent of an indirect repeal of a law. The bill was then passed without an appropriation for special deputies. The army appropriation bill of May 4, renewed the rider forbidding payment for transportation or subsistence of troops for service at the polls in any state. See (I.) Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; 2 Hough's American Constitutions, 657, a summary of provisions as to veto power in the states, as they stood in 1872; the variations in this article are subsequent changes; (II.) see Congressional Globe and Congressional Record, under the several dates; 16 Benton's Debates of Congress, 306; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 195; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, 29, 505; and Statutes at Large and Revised Statutes, under the dates and sections named. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. | lost, by the diplomacy of Ignatieff in 1860, the Amoor region and maritime provinces touching the Pacific and Corea a territory as large as France-she has firmly resisted all further encroachments. Wresting Ili from Russia, she further manifested her policy by warning off the Japanese from Formosa in 1876, by demanding Riu Kiu from Japan, by garrisoning Seoul with her soldiery after the Corcan uprising in July, 1880, by military defense of her frontier against suspected Russian aggression, and by informing France of her determination to defend her vassal Tonquin against invasion, annexation or protectorate. The problem is further complicated, not only in the case of Riu Kiu, but in that of others, as in the Indo-Chinese peninsula, by the fact that these RIGHT OF INHERITANCE. (See INHERIT petty kingdoms have for centuries rendered hom. ANCE.) age and paid tribute to two countries: to the nearest and less powerful, and to supreme China-to RIGHT OF PETITION. (See PETITION, the distant "Son of Heaven" and "Lord of Ten RIGHT OF.) RIU KIU. The demands of practical politics in Asia are compelling the issue of a problem that has, especially since the opening of this century, been awaiting solution. The extension of European interests in the far east has had the tendency, not only to force China to define her relations with the nations of the west, but also with those on or near her borders. For many centuries the centre of culture to more than half of the largest, the most populous and the most varied continent of earth, China, has divided the world into two portions: the middle (China), and the foreign (all -other nations). The outlying people were "barbarians," and all holding relations with her were reckoned as tributaries or vassals. The investiture bestowed upon each, and the actual reception, by the Chinese "Son of Heaven," of gifts which were considered as marks of homage from almost every country, from the Caspian sea to Japan, and from the Malay archipelago to the frozen tundras of Siberia, are recorded in the Chinese court annals. Even the embassies from Rome, India, Venice, and the modern kingdoms of Europe, were registered as "tribute bearers." China's form of the doctrine of the "Divine Right" to rule all nations, is expressed in the title of her emperors, Whang-Ti, Heavenly Dynasty, or Theocratic emperor. Western governments in Christendom have compelled a change in diplomatic language as regards themselves, but the tone of oriental mock-courtesy or real loyalty to the Chinese emperor is still very abject, however independent such countries as Annam or Corea may in actuality be. Almost alone of China's neighbors, Japan has asserted and maintained absolute political independence, though Siam is rapidly following her example. China, now pressed on all sides by European enterprise and ambition, finds that she must maintain her old claims, or suffer the presence of frontagers who, instead of manifesting the demeanor of childlike suppliants, bear the attitude of jealous defiance. Since she Thousand Chariots" in Peking. So long as the ordinary conditions of Asiatic statecraft were unvexed with modern and western ideas, this state of things could go on undisturbed. The entrance of Russians, French and British on the scene as neighbors, and extra-territorial residents, has complicated the problem. — Of Riu Kiu (Sleepy Dragon), a group of thirty-seven sugar and rice producing islands stretching like a long rope (okinawa) from Satsuma to Formosa, with a population of over 166,000 souls, we may say that it needs a Solomon to pronounce upon its parentage. Like a babe between two maternal claimants, it is in danger of the sword and of division. The Riu Kiu people are, in origin, language and dynasty, true Japanese, but being powerless between the two great rival empires, Japan and China, they have endeavored to keep the friendship of both by tribute and acknowledgment of submission to either. Thirty-six Chinese families from Fu-kien settled in the islands in A. D. 1372, and encouraged trade, friendship and relations of culture and submission to the Chinese court, which were not in. terrupted by the Japanese. Before this time and afterward, however, Riu Kiu was a feudal dependency of Satsuma, and was so dealt with by the Japanese shōguns, and the junk-load of gifts sent annually to China was permitted as merely an exchange of neighborly courtesies." On account of their evident reluctance to fill their quota of war material, ordered by Hidyoshi when about to invade Corea in 1592, the prince of Satsuma, in 1609, after the Corean war and civil trouble in Japan were over, made an expedition to Riu Kiu, and completely subdued the principality, sent the king Shonei as prisoner to Yedo, and after a thorough reformation of administration in the islands, the daimiōs of Satsuma were confirmed in their possession of Riu Kiu, keeping Shonei as hostage for three years, while the laws and customs of his dominions were being assimilated to those of Japan. Upon his accession to office, each prince of Riu Kiu took an oath of allegiance to the daimio of Satsuma, and Japan treated Riu In time Kiu as an integral portion of the empire. of famine, food was sent to relieve the starving, and indemnity was exacted from the Formosan pirates for depredations upon Riu Kiu sailors. Commodore M. C. Perry, in 1853, acted upon the principle that Riu Kiu was a dependency of Japan, and though modifying his view after a stay of some months in China, he finally made an agreement with the regent of Riu Kiu, which, however, contained no statement of the political status of the island kingdom. In 1872, after the abolition of feudalism in Japan, Riu Kiu was made a province (han), and the chief, Sho-tai, a governor (han-wo). In 1874, Riu Kiu was brought directly under control of the home department, and the custom of sending presents or tribute to China was forbidden. In the diplomatic correspondence between Peking and Tōkiō, relative to the Formosan affair in 1874, China distinctly recognized the Riu Kiuans (who had been killed by the Formosan savages) as Japanese subjects. The Chinese envoys to Japan in 1878 protested against the Japanese occupation of Riu Kiu and their interdict on tribute to China, demanding that the old status quo of the islands should be restored. Terashima, the mikado's minister (and now envoy at Washington), | objecting to their offensive language, cut off further negotiation. On April 4, 1879, the Riu Kiu han (province) was abolished, and the okinawa ken (prefecture) established, while Sho-tai, the chief, was ordered to reside, like the former daimiōs, or feudal chiefs now retired, in Tōkiō. The discussion was now opened at Peking, but with little progress, until, in 1879, Prince Kung referred the matter to Gen. U. S. Grant, then visiting China and about to go to Japan. After his arrival in Tōkiō, and consideration of the evidence on both sides, Gen. Grant advised the withdrawal of previous dispatches and the appointment of plenipotentiary commissioners to settle the difficulty. The commission began its sittings in Peking, Aug. 15, 1880, and the negotiations continued during three months. On Oct. 21 the drafts of the treaty which was expected to end the controversy were ready for signature. It provided that the boundary line between the two empires should be drawn at about the twenty-fifth parallel of north latitude; that Yayé-yama and Miako islands should belong to China, but all northward should belong to Japan. The treaty, as agreed upon by the high commissioners, was to be signed within ten days; but after sixteen days had elapsed, the Tsung-li Yamen notified Mr. Shishido, the mikado's envoy, that by imperial order the treaty was to be submitted to the northern and southern superintendents of trade, and others, for consideration and further report. This amazing violation, by the Peking government, of the principles of international law and common courtesy, in remanding the solemn decisions of a plenipotentiary commission to which, on the recommendation of an eminent American citizen, Japan had, in good faith and covenant with China, submitted her case-to | other parties, is thus adjudged by the Hon. J. B. Angell, minister of the United States to China: 'Even if they [the Chinese] have justice on their side, in opposing the seizure of the islands by. Ja pan, they could not well contrive a better way to alienate the sympathy of all civilized nations from them in the assertion of their rights than by the course which, if we accept the statement of Mr. Shishido, they have now seen fit to take in their negotiations with Japan." On Jan. 20, 1881, nearly five months after the commission had finished its labors, and after repeated remonstrances, Mr. Shishido, the mikado's commissioner, left Peking, since which time the Japanese government have steadily refused to reopen the question with China. Whether by war, by diplomacy, or by arbitration, the solution of the long-standing problem of China's claim to sovereignty over pupil or neighbor nations seems probable, and may take place before the end of this century. Neither Japan, with her new sense of nationality, nor European nations in this age of liberty, are inclined. to respect a claim that seems more antiquated and anachronistic as such a figment as the holy Roman empire and such a doctrine as the divine right of kings to reign settle below the world's horizon. - LITERATURE. M. C. Perry's The Japan Expedition; Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. i.; files of The Japan Mail and Japan Gazette; The Chrysanthemum (Yokohama) of March, 1883; Diplomatic correspondence of the United States, 1881, 1882. WM. ELLIOT GRIFFIS. RIVER AND HARBOR BILLS. (See INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.) ROADS. (See TRANSPORTATION, MEANS OF.) ROADS AND CANALS. (See INTERNAL. IMPROVEMENTS.) ROHMER'S DOCTRINE OF PARTIES. (See PARTIES, POLITICAL.) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The object of the present article is, in the first place, to present a condensed exposition of all those provisions of the constitution of the Catholic church which are of any importance for the political understanding of ecclesiastical questions, and then of those principles of that same constitution which have to do with the relation of the Catholic church to the state and to other confessions, etc.: the wholefrom the point of view, and according to the teaching, of the Catholic church itself.*—I. Nature and Mission of the Church. The Catholic church, according to its own dogmatic teaching, is the body or community of all those who are This article is intended neither as an argument for, nor as an attack upon, the Catholic church. It is a simple statement of its own doctrines, written by a deep thinker profoundly versed in its doctrines and laws. See note at the close of the article.-ED. | united in the faith in Jesus Christ, a community | ingly, the fulfillment of the promise made by God founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the end that, within its fold, the individual may work out his eternal salvation. To effect this his purpose, Christ-for the continuation of the functions which he performed during his earthly life, and for the application of the spiritual means of the sacraments bequeathed by him to this community-at the same time established his apostolate, charged with the task and endowed with the power of appointing successors who should, unto the end of time, labor toward the restoration willed by Christ, and purchased for them by his incarnation and death, viz., the restoration of all nations to the true faith, and effecting through that faith, their entrance into the kingdom of God. To preserve the true faith unaltered forever, God promised and sent the Holy Ghost, the divine Spirit, to the church, to remain with it throughout all time. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, is the only true (unica, una) one; it is of direct divine institution, built on the apostles chosen by Christ himself, and on their successors, descended from them, in an uninterrupted series, by spiritual generation or ordination (ecclesia apostolica); it has been called to be universal (catholica) both in time and space, and to receive into its bosom all those I who fulfill the conditions which Christ attached to entrance into his community; unto it is granted, through its instruments of grace, the power to make man the child of God, to help him to fulfill his religious destiny and to sanctify him (ecclesia sancta). But, to do this, the church must be everywhere recognizable, external and visible (ecclesia externa, visibilis). To this end it has received, in the fundamental features of it, a definite constitution, with the church's central point in the bishop of Rome, the successor to the priority conferred by Christ on Peter, that is to say, to the primacy among the apostles, and therefore, in the bishop of Rome as the visible vicar of Christ.. Hence the church is an ecclesia, catholica, apostolica Romana. In order that the church may not err in matters pertaining to the faith, that is, in general, in its teaching, concerning all those doctrines on the acceptance of which membership in the Christian community depends (the dogmas of the church), or in those precepts the observance of which is a condition to the salvation of the individual (the fundamental doctrines of morals), it is, by the constant dwelling within it of the Holy Ghost, endowed with infallibility for all time (ecclesia infallibilis). Thus, the Catholic church represents itself, not merely as a subjective community of Christian believers, but also as an objective community, as the only external visible institution founded by Christ for the realization of his kingdom. Its foundation is the doctrine of faith and morals proclaimed by Christ himself, and preserved, first, in the recognized sacred books of the New Testament (Bible), which, according to the universal belief of the church, were written under divine inspiration, and secondly, in the oral tradition of the church. The church is, accord after the fall, the institution for which he prepared the way under the old dispensation; so that Christianity is not the abolition but the fulfillment of Judaism; and therefore the sacred books of the latter (the Old Testament) in as far as they do not exclusively relate to national, ceremonial and like affairs, preserve their authority in Christianity. Hence the aim and object of the church is not the establishment of an earthly kingdom; it is not a | kingdom of this world; its interests are not secular, but religious and spiritual; its mission is to restore harmony between the cravings of the sensitive faculty and the commands of God, to bring it to pass that the individual, through faith, and through the grace accorded by God to all, may will his own salvation, and with freedom, by works conforma ble to the faith, labor for his salvation. According to the teaching of the Catholic church, it is not mere faith in Christ that insures salvation, but faith in Christ, and works corresponding to that faith; a life in, and conformable to, the faith. Although, according to its dogmas, entrance into its communion is a condition to salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus), the attaching of the conse-' quences which follow the non-fulfillment of that condition presupposes knowledge, and an act of the will refusing to enter it. Hence the church does not condemn those of a faith other than its own. In this world, the church fulfills its task through the mediation of a visible institution, and through means, connected with visible symbols and forms; visible, because intended for men who, as visible, external beings, are bound to and can not escape such forms. Those of the church who have ended their earthly career, immediately enter into a state of perfection, of beatitude in the contemplation of God (church triumphant), or remain in a middle state of purification (purgatory), (the church suffering). These, together with the faithful in this world still working out their salvation in the earthly struggle (church militant), constitute the communion of saints (communio sanctorum); through this communion the merits of the saints. may be applied to those on earth, and the prayers of the living avail those undergoing the purification of purgatory. Only the church on earth (the church militant) has anything to do with human law. It enters into the domain of law because of the action which it desires to and must exercise on men, even on all men, because of the external means it employs, and finally because of its compact, visible organization. But its mission, nevertheless, is not an earthly and human one; hence, by its very nature, it is not dependent on any power whatever, nor conditioned by any such power; the church must fulfill its mission, wherever and as soon as it has the means to fulfill it; because with the possibility to fulfill it comes its duty to fulfill it. As regards the individual Catholic, the external fulfillment of his duty consists in the life in the church, and according to the teachings of the church. And this supposes: participation in external divine worship (cultus); |