Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

in Great Britain

The Irish, deParliamentary Representation mand for Home Rule, and especially the alleged grievance of unjust and excessive taxation, have produced results in England and Scotland that threaten to change the existing ratio of the distribution of seats in Parliament. Against the claim of Ireland for a lowering of rates and a readjustment of taxation, it is urged that she has twenty-seven more Parliamentary seats at Westminster than she is entitled to, and that at best her demand could not be met without a reduction of her representation. It is further urged that Ireland's case is also the case of England, Scotland, and Wales, the growth and movement of population having somewhat altered the number of members of Parliament to which they are entitled. At present the House of Commons contains 670 members, of whom 466 are from England, 103 from Ireland, 72 from Scotland, and 30 from Wales. On the basis of the latest census returns, which allot one member for every 60,000 of the population, England would have 495 members, Ireland 76, Scotland 71, and Wales 28.

The London "Chronicle" has shown how a number of little Tory boroughs, each with very much less than the average number of votes in a constituency, have returned enough members to the House of Commons to contribute materially to the triumph of the Unionist cause, but at the same time opposes the movement for reducing Ireland's representation unless the redistribution of seats in the whole Kingdom is dealt with at the same time. The discussions in Great Britain in regard to this and allied questions have really had a unifying influence; they have shown the political solidarity of the Kingdom in ways apt to be overlooked except when thus brought quickly and unexpectedly to the front. Not only in regard to representation, but taxation as well, England is beginning to ask for a readjustment of her financial burdens, claiming that an undue proportion of them falls upon the poorer districts. It would be hard to find another instance in British history of an issue, presented at first as local and sectional, which has more completely asserted itself as of national importance and at the same time called out forbearance and a spirit of just compromise.

[blocks in formation]

want of confidence, and Mr. W. P. Schreiner, as leader of the Africander Bond, has succeeded to the premiership. The policy of the new Ministry will be closely watched in relation to the Transvaal and the British Government. It is only just to say that the platform of the Africander Bond, so far from containing only disloyal utterances, had provided for a voluntary addition to the navy of Great Britain; and in regard to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State there was nothing asserted which could be construed into hostility to England. If any hostility is to be shown, the present time and opportunity would seem auspicious. Great Britain is believed with good reason to be engaged in negotiations for the taking over of Delagoa Bay, and the railway and telegraph lines in which Portugal has an interest. Any assistance given now by the Dutch in Cape Colony to their friends in the Transvaal would aid the latter in retaining her only way of egress to the sea, all other ways having come under the control of Great Britain. But a new factor, the demands of which will not stop to consider the necessities of the Transvaal, is apparently deciding the possession of Delagoa Bay in favor of Great Britain. Portugal is on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is asserted, with much reason, that some relief from her financial strain will be gained by selling the reversion of her African possessions to England and Germany. The fact is that the Anglo-German agreement had its origin in Portugal's necessity, and Germany cannot be counted upon as in the slightest degree favoring the Transvaal in the policy so avowedly hostile to England. Thus it would seem that the new Ministry at the Cape cannot effect any adverse change of importance; apart from the larger interests which would not stand any meddling at present, Mr. Schreiner's majority is only two. Had it not been for the narrow and intolerant disposition which led Mr. Rhodes and the Progressives to ascribe disloyalty and treason to their opponents without any sufficient evidence in support of the charge, the Africander Bond would not now be in power.

The pilgrimage of An Emperor on His Travels the Emperor of Germany to Palestine, which began last week, will be followed with a great deal of curiosity. The spectacular and somewhat humorous aspects of this pilgrimage were pointed

out in these columns several weeks ago; and
it cannot be denied that the undertaking has
something bizarre and a trifle theatrical in
its magnitude and its gorgeousness. It is
reported that one of the many strong-boxes
which go
with the expedition contains pres-
ents to an amount exceeding $1,000,000 in
value, which the Emperor is to bestow with
royal lavishness on Oriental princes and poten-
tates. But William III., though a somewhat
theatrical person, and exceedingly fond of
the spectacular side of kingship, is also a per-
son of very considerable ability and very sub-
stantial character. If his pilgrimage is made
the occasion of a great deal of display, it will
not be an idle pageant; it will be in pursu-
ance of a policy perfectly defined in the ends
which it is seeking. Various interpretations
of this policy have been put forth; perhaps
the most plausible of them is that which was
suggested in these columns some time since-
that the Emperor desires to widen German
influence in Syria, and to establish it on a
firm foundation. One modification has been
made in the journey, which may possibly
have some significance. The Emperor orig-
inally planned to make a trip up the Nile,
spending about three weeks in Egypt. If
this plan were to be carried out, he would be
the guest of the Khedive, but he could hardly
avoid recognizing Lord Cromer as the actual
governor of the country. If, in the present
state of feeling over the Fashoda incident,
he were formally to recognize the presence
of England in the Nile Valley, he would seri-
ously offend France. There is, therefore, good
reason why he should modify his plan so as
to leave the Nile trip out of it.

The Wreck of the
Mohegan

[ocr errors]

the wind was not heavy, and although the sea was high, there was nothing in the situation which can account for the wrecking of the steamer. She was fully seven miles north of her course, and it is impossible to understand how the Captain could have been ignorant of that fact. The accounts of survivors show that the Mohegan ran at full speed on to the rocks. As soon as the disaster was seen from the shore, lifeboats were put off, and every possible effort made to save the passengers and crew. In spite of these efforts, however, more than a hundred lives were lost. The coast is rocky and extremely dangerous, and the sea that was running made it difficult to save the men and women on the disabled steamer. The officers and crew appear to have borne themselves with perfect courage and composure, the Captain going down with his ship. Many persons were killed by being beaten by the waves on the rocks. A rigid investigation ought to be made at once, for the time is past when such occurrences as this can be set down to "the providence of God." Some one was responsible in this case, and that responsibility ought to be definitely ascertained and fixed. Many acts of individual courage are reported, among them the heroic fight for life of Miss Katherine Noble, of Baltimore, who was rescued after being three hours in the sea, clinging to a plank and swept from point to point by the huge waves. She was finally rescued by a lifeboat and taken to a fisherman's cottage, having sustained no greater injury than severe bruises.

The feeling of security Expansion not Imperialism

produced in the minds of travelers by long immunity from erious accidents has been rudely disturbed a second time this season by the loss of the steamer Mohegan, in the vicinity of the Lizard, on the extreme south coast of England, on Friday evening last. The Mohegan was a new steamship belonging to the Atlantic Transport Company, and was formerly known on another line as the Cleopatra. Her engines and boilers were defect ive, and it has been suggested, by way of explaining the accident, that her engines broke down, and, in the rough sea, she drifted on to the rocks. Later reports, however, appear to make this explanation untenable There was no fog at the time of the disaster;

The term imperialism has been applied by its opponents to the policy of expansion, but it has not been adopted nor accepted by the friends of that policy. They are not imperialists; they do not believe in imperialism. On the contrary, it is because they are enthusiastic believers in democracy-that is, in both the capacity and the right of the people to govern themselves-that they are expansionists. An imperialist is "one who favors the establishment or maintenance of an empire." The expansionist does not favor the establishment or maintenance of an empire; he favors the expansion of republicanism, and, to that end and for that purpose, the expansion of the Republic of which he is a member.

That he is supposed to favor the estab

lishment of a quasi imperial rule is very clearly indicated in papers and addresses written to convince him or to convince others that he is mistaken. Thus Felix Adler, in an article in the "International Journal of Ethics" for October, attacks what he calls imperialism, on the ground, among others, that it would be the saddest kind of mistake... if we should now become ashamed of the idea that we have a mission to fulfill for the benefit of mankind and should lose the sense of that mission; if our failure to solve the problem we have set ourselves should make us forget that the problem itself is a grander and a nobler one than any great nation has ever set itself, and that its difficulties are due to its grandeur; . . . if, instead of establishing the Pax Americana so far as our influence avails throughout this continent, we should enter into the field of Old World strife, and seek the sort of glory that is written in human blood." Here it is assumed that we have failed in establishing self-government, and propose to substitute, at least in other lands, an Old World form of government. This sort of argument has no effect on the expansionist, because he believes that we have magnificently succeeded in our problem, in spite of failures, neglects, and violations of our own principles, and because what he wishes to do is, not to abandon the experiment, but, inspired by the successes of the past, extend the Pax Americana over lands not included in this continent.

In a similar fashion the Hon. J. G. Carlisle argues in "Harper's Magazine" for October. He warns us not to" enter upon an unjustifiable contest for dominion and power beyond the natural limits of our State and Federal systems of government;" declares that "our political institutions were not designed for the government of dependent colonies and provinces;" insists that "this was intended to be a free Republic of self-governing States and intelligent, law-abiding, and liberty-loving people;" and declares that "the un-American theory that Congress or the Executive can permanently hold and govern any part of the United States in such manner as it or he may see fit is a necessary feature of the imperialism which now threatens the country." This argument assumes that we have entered on a contest for dominion and power; that we propose permanently to hold colonies and provinces as Federal dependencies; that we disbelieve in self-governing States, and expect to substitute therefor

States governed by Congress or the President. This argument also fails to affect the mind of the expansionist. For he believes that our recent war was not for dominion and power, but for the emancipation of subject races; he does not propose permanently to hold colonies or provinces as Federal dependencies; and he believes so absolutely in selfgoverning States that he desires to see his own Nation aid liberty-loving people beyond the boundaries of his own continent to establish and maintain such States, even though such people have not been made intelligent nor wholly law-abiding by the despotism under which they have lived in the past. The expansionist agrees absolutely with the Hon. J. G. Carlisle in condemning any "forcible extension of our jurisdiction over an unwilling people;" but his belief in forcible aid to a willing people to establish and maintain local self-government is not affected by arguments against extending over an unwilling people a government which they repudiate and resist.

The radical difference between the expansionist and the continentalist-that is, between the one who believes that American ideas and institutions are good for the whole world, and the one who thinks they are adapted only to the continent of North America— is not that the former is an imperialist and the latter a democrat, but that the former is a more radical, a more enthusiastic, and a more optimistic democrat than the latter. The expansionist reads, for example, in Mr. Carlisle's article the statement, "What they [the Filipinos] are now they must continue to be for many generations:" this is Mr. Carlisle's theory. Then he turns to the "Century Magazine" for October, and reads Professor Dean C. Worcester's statement of fact derived from familiar knowledge of the Filipinos: Taken as a whole, these pagan tribes may be said to present no serious problem, except the one involved in their ultimate civilization. The results of the few half-hearted attempts that have been made in this direction have been such as to convince one that they might make rapid progress, as soon as the condition of the civilized natives could be sufficiently improved to afford a practical illustration of the benefits of civilization." That condition the expansionist wishes to improve, in order that whole-hearted efforts of Christian philanthropy may have a chance to promote that progress which the expansionist believes is possible for all classes

and all races if freedom and justice are given to them. The expansionist lifts up the great stone which has lain for years upon the grass; the continentalist peeps under. “Drop the stone back," he cries; "this territory is not fitted for healthful life; grass will not grow, and bugs abound." "No," replies the expansionist; "take the stone away; then the grass will grow and the bugs will disappear."

At the close of the Revolutionary War the authority of the United States extended to the Mississippi River. All west of the Mississippi River has been acquired since under a policy of expansion-part of it by conquest from Mexico, part of it by purchase from France in 1803, and from Great Britain in 1846. What has been the result of this expansion? Over all this vast territory, in extent, exclusive of Alaska, nearly twice that of the original territory of the Nation, America has established local self-government, subject to the supremacy and with the protection of the National Government. Once that supremacy was denied; war ensued; the supremacy was assured and re-established and what then? Not dominion and power; not a government modeled on Old World methods; not any form of imperialism-but self-government. The liberty which the people denied to themselves was conquered for them and given back to them. The proposal to treat the Southern States as conquered territory and govern them from Washington received scant respect and no popular approval.

The people who have refrained from imperialism in the past may be trusted to refrain from it in the future. The people who have given self-government to all the lands which they have ever possessed, whether purchased by their money or won by their arms, may be trusted to give it to all future lands where their flag floats. Imperialism has no attractions for Americans. There are no imperial. ists in America; certainly the expansionists are not imperialists. They are enthusiastic and optimistic democrats. He who wishes to persuade them of their error can never do it by arguing against imperialism; he can only do it by showing them that their democracy is too enthusiastic and too optimistic.

The reader has a right to ask, If the colonies are not to be governed upon imperial principles from Washington, how can they be governed? How can self-government and a colonial policy be reconciled? But all questions cannot be answered in a single article, and this question we must leave for future

.

consideration. It must suffice here to reiterate that:

Expansion of DEMOCRACY is not IMPERI

ALISM.

The Lake Mohonk Conference

[ocr errors]

Faithful are the wounds of a friend,” might have been the cry of the wounded administrators of Indian affairs had they heard all the comments made at the Mohonk Conference last week. The recent disturbance among the Pillager Indians of Minnesota was the immediate occasion of a careful resifting of the causes that led to that trouble. Among the guests at the Conference was the Rev. Mr. Gilfillan, who for nearly a quarter of a century has been a missionary among the Indians of northern Minnesota. He narrated in detail the old story of broken promises, unfulfilled agreements and treaties which have marked the history of the relations of the white man and the red man in that part of the country. Exasperated by ill-treatment and maddened by poisoned liquors, the tragedy at Leech Lake was what might have been foreseen. It is remarkable, however, that, in spite of long provocation, this is the first time the Chippewa Indians have ever shed the blood of the whites, and even in this conflict they spared women, children, and unarmed men. Mr. Gilfillan's story we give in full on another page.

The discussion of the Minnesota trouble led naturally to a consideration of the general administration of Indian affairs. At no previous Conference has there ever been more outspoken criticism. Making all allowance for such progress as has been attained, often in spite of serious obstacles, the belief was repeatedly expressed that the present condition in many respects is deplorable. Persons absolutely trustworthy did not hesitate to complain that it is well-nigh impossible to secure reform for crying evils, notably in the dismissal of unfit employees and agents. Conclusions of the Conference were formulated in a statement which, coming mainly from earnest supporters of the present Administration and lifelong Republicans, is worthy of careful study, especially by those who are looking forward to a great extension of the administrative functions of our Government in the direction of colonial government.

This platform is, however, by no means merely critical. It proposes definite reforms. Chief among these reforms is that the agency system shall go, the reservations be thrown open, the Indian Bureau at an early day dissolved, and Civil Service rules applied from the apex to the foundation while it still exists. Were the Indian school system, which has already been brought under Civil Service rules, made a part of the Bureau of Education, there would be little, comparatively, left for an Indian Bureau to do. Under Commissioner Harris the schools could be looked after wisely and well, even though they have lost the invaluable services of Dr. Hailman, whose removal, on political grounds, was most heartily condemned. The list of agencies where the Indians are even now so advanced that they would be better off were they free from the trammels imposed by agents is surprisingly large; and were such tribes given the liberty they ought to have, the impetus toward manhood and good citizenship would be immediately felt. This is not the view of transcendental theorists, but of practical men of affairs who know the Indian thoroughly and who are deeply interested in his progress toward civilization.

for example, one or two sentences from President McKinley's speech at Omaha:

Who will intrude detraction at this time to belittle the manly spirit of the American youth and impair the usefulness of the American navy? Who will embarrass the Government by sowing seeds of dissatisfaction among the brave men who stand ready to serve and die if need be for their country? Who will darken the counsels of the Republic in this hour requiring the united wisdom of all? Shall we deny to ourselves what the rest of the world so freely and so justly accords to us? The men who endured in the short but decisive struggle its hardships, its privations, whether in the field or camp, on ship or in siege, and planned and achieved its victories, will never tolerate impeachment, either direct or indirect, of those who won a peace whose great gain to civilization is yet unknown and unwritten.

Very similar in tone is the following paragraph from his St. Louis speech:

Let nothing distract us; let no discordant voice intrude to embarrass us in the solution of

the mighty problems which involve such vast consequences to ourselves and posterity. Let

us remember that God bestows upon no nation supreme opportunity which is not ready to respond to the call of supreme duty.

Either this means nothing, or it means that the criticism of the maladministration of our army, and the demand for thorough investigation of the abuses and the location of the responsibility therefor, is belittling the manly spirit of American youth, and sowing seeds of dissatisfaction among brave men

The President's Speeches who dare to serve and die for their country,

The President is making a tour of the West in connection with his visit to Omaha, and is giving a series of the kind of speeches which too generally characterize the nominal head of a nation on such occasions, whether he be King, Prime Minister, or President. It is perhaps ungracious to criticise such speeches because they contain nothing definite, either by way of information, intelligent criticism, or forelooking policy. It would perhaps be unjust to expect that they should. But we doubt the value of the indiscriminating optimism which characterized the most important of these speeches yet delivered, those at Omaha and at St. Louis; and we desire to put ourselves on record as distinctly deprecating the unmistakable attempt in these speeches to put a stop to the very healthful criticism of administrative abuses which is being heard from all over the country, and which, unhappily, as a report this week of the Lake Mohonk Conference shows, is not confined to the War Department. We quote,

and is embarrassing us in the attempt to solve our "mighty problems;" as though the most difficult of all our problems, and one of the most necessary, were not how to secure a pure and efficient administration. Compare with these generalities the definite and specific charges in the articles of George Kennan, the third and last of which we publish in this week's issue.

Either Mr. McKinley greatly misinterprets the temper of the American people or we do. The impending Congressional elections will make clear whether he estimates that temper aright. We believe that the people are satisfied with and proud of the administration of the navy; that they are satisfied with and proud of the heroism of their soldiers in the field-whether regular or volunteers; but that they are not satisfied with the administration of the War Department, whose inefficiency has caused not only so much needless discomfort but so many needless deaths. We believe that this dissatisfaction is wide and deep. If the present Administration had shown itself in earnest to

« PrethodnaNastavi »