Slike strani

policy which may win her the support of Japan and the United


The interests of three Great Powers are directly opposed to the open declaration of partition. When, therefore, the question arises of the future status of the Chinese Empire, let Great Britain declare that her policy is the preservation đi the eighteen provinces in their integrity, and demand throughou those provinces international freedom, customs, and tariffs. Such a policy, if firmly announced, would meet with the support of Japan and the United States, and could not be openly opposed by Russia, which is for ever posing as the disinterested friend of China, and which, moreover, must regard with distrust the rise of a Greater Germany on her flink. Such a declaration would clear the situation at once.

The alternative is plain. If the Powers refuse to support us in maintaining the integrity of the eighteen provinces, and to give practical demonstration of that support by sacrificing their exclusive spheres, then we too must adopt a sphere, and we must make it plain that we are determined to go just as far in the protection of our sphere as any other power.


Mr. Josiah Quincy writes in the North American Review on Chini and Russia. He thinks that Russia's policy in regard to China is based upon her territorial proximity and the dread that China may, under the direction of Japan, become an aggressive Power. Russia's position in regard to China is now a predominant one, and is largely strengthened by the fact that, like Japan, she has no missionaries in the country. Mr. Quincy advises that American statesmen should preserve good relations with Russia in the settlement of the Chinese question:

The natural and legitimate character of the expansion of Russia to the Pacific, the fact that she has a real civilising mission in Asia, however her own civilisation may fall below the European standard in some respects; the service which she is rendering to the future commerce of the world by the great continental railroad which she is building at such an enormous cost; the pacific character of her policy-these are points which cannot be treated within the limits of this article. The maintenance of friendly relations with Russia should be as cardinal a point in our diplomatic policy as the cultivation of similar relations with us is in her own programme. Each nation has expanded across a continent, from one ocean to another; we meet as friends upon the shores of the Pacific-the great arena in which, perhaps, is to be fought out, in war or in peace, the struggle for political or commercial supremacy.


Mr. Y. Ozaki contributes an excellent article on "Misunderstood Japan" to the North American Review for October. The chief object of his article is to point out the disadvantage under which Japan has lain owing to the failure of Europeans to understand her; but its greatest interest lies in his definition of Japanese policy in regard to Russia, China, and Corea. Mr. Ozaki wisely does not believe in the inevitableness of a conflict with Russia. He points out that neither country has anything to gain from such a struggle. Russia's advance to Port Arthur, he says, was inevitable, and responsible Japanese feel no vindictiveness over the events of 1895. The acquisition of Corea by Russia would, however, be regarded as a menace. Mr. Ozaki says that Japan needs no territory on the Asiatic continent for the purposes of colonisation. The Island of Yezo is still sparsely populated and, if developed, could maintain a large population.


Mr. Maurice Low in the National Review, after outlining the effect produced by the United States on the

[blocks in formation]

Whether or not missionary work should be circumscribed in its extent must be left to the great societies which have it in charge. From my experience I would advise that care and prudence be exercised in selecting locations for missionaries. In many localities there would not, probably, for a generation to come be any danger of destruction. In others the danger is patent. It is impossible for our Government to station soldiers all over China to protect its people. It can only demand redress when wrongs are perpetrated, and that it has always faithfully done. The spirit of adventure which takes no account except of the letter of the Scriptural injunction, should be restrained. In some cases missionaries have defied the advice of consuls, and have gone into the most dangerous localities. There should be reason in all things. Riots occur and pass like summer clouds, and all races are eminently recuperative. A few years will obliterate the marks of the recent outrages; but let not the patient, gentle, persistent labours of decades be brought to naught.

BUDDHISM is the "Great Religion of the World" dealt with by Professor Rhys Davids in the North American Review for October. On the whole, he thinks that Buddhism is likely to increase its influence in the world. as a religious force :


It is not probable that any considerable number of people, either in Europe or America, will ever range themselves openly on the side of Buddhism, as a profession of faith. But it cannot be denied that there are certain points in the Buddhist view of life that are likely to influence, and to influence widely, with increasing intensity, the views of life, of philosophy, of ethics, as held now in the West. And not only the view of life, the method also, the system of self-training in ethical culture, has certain points which the practical Western mind is not likely, when it comes to know it, to ignore.


THE first place in the Contemporary Review is given to a weighty article by Dr. Albert Shaw on the American Presidential Election. Dr. Shaw maintains that there has never been a time when the Presidential Election excited less strong feeling on the part of the American electorate. The old issues which used to divide and distract the citizens have practically disappeared. If it were not that there are two standing armies of politicians, continually on the warpath, who must fight at each election or lose their raison d'être, there need not have been a contest this year at all. But although the contest had to be joined, Dr. Shaw thinks there has never been a time when the re-election of the out-going President would be acquiesced in so generally as on the present occasion.


Dr. Shaw devotes considerable space to setting forth how it was that the negro question has ceased to divide parties. The Republicans no longer consider it their duty as superior persons to protect the rights of their coloured fellow-citizens in the Southern States, and the white population no longer feels that it is necessary to be Democratic in order to defend the rule of the white man against the negroes. In the majority of Southern States they have effectually succeeded in disfranchising the negroes by enforcing restrictions upon illiterate voting, which Dr. Shaw evidently regards as legitimate and necessary. There is therefore no longer a negro question. Neither is there any longer a tariff question. Dr. Shaw quotes a prophecy which he made twelve years ago, that protection was the shortest cut to Free Trade, and that if McKinley had been allowed to have full and uninterrupted possession of the tariff, we might reasonably have expected the establishment of Free Trade to come in with the new century. As it is, the Democratic agitation against the high tariff postponed the realisation of this ideal, but Dr. Shaw evidently is of opinion that in a very few years the American tariff for protective purposes will be dispensed with, as builders discard scaffolding when the building is finished. The third issue which has practically disappeared, although it still forms a plank in the programme of the opposing parties, is the question of currency. This is so far a dead issue that Dr. Shaw thinks it is evident that the majority of the delegates at the Democratic Convention at Kansas City would have preferred to drop the Silver question, but as this could not be done with dropping Bryan, they accepted Bryan, even although he was weighted with his previous declarations on the subject of the importance of the Silver currency.


There are then two issues, that of Imperialism and that of Trusts. Dr. Shaw expresses himself very strongly as to the inconsequence and inconsistency of Mr. Bryan's policy in relation to the Philippine Islands. To judge from his general declarations you would think that they led irresistibly to the conclusion that the United States ought to confess that it was wrong in trying to coerce the Filipinos, that it ought to admit their independence, and base a treaty of peace upon such an admission, and then to withdraw from the islands exactly on the analogy of the British withdrawal from America in 1783. Mr. Bryan draws no such conclusions. First, he would have the United States retain possession, in the fullest sense, of an important Philippine seaport and coaling station, which, being interpreted, means

that he would hold Manila as owner and sovereign for ever. Further, Mr. Bryan proposes that the United States should continue to exercise authority throughout the Philippine Islands until it had established there a stable government. Finally, Mr. Bryan holds that after the Americans had withdrawn, they should continue to maintain a protectorate over the whole Archipelago. Against this most lame and illogical conclusion of Mr. Bryan's, the Republicans simply say that it is their duty to discover and develop a capacity for local self-government among the Filipinos. Meanwhile, they are bound by treaty to assert their authority and to resist all efforts to expel the soldiers from the islands. If Mr. Bryan were to be elected this November Mr. McKinley would still go on endeavouring to suppress the Philippine insurrection until the 4th of March. Even then Dr. Shaw doubts whether Mr. Bryan could in any case induce the Democratic Congress to relinquish the sovereignty of the United States. The Democratic majority must come from the South, where public sentment is in favour of American commercial and political expansion in every direction. The Democratic South is no more ready than the North to haul down the flag.


The question of Trusts, Dr. Shaw says, has brough Mr. Bryan more support than his inconsistent attitude ca the subject of the Philippine War. A great labour vote will be polled for him in the spirit of general antagonism towards rich men and great corporations. Dr. Shaw expresses no opinion as to how the German vote will go. though he says that a great effort is being made to capture the German vote for the Democrats by labelling McKinley as the friend of England and the enemy of the Boer Republics. Dr. Shaw finishes his paper as he began by declaring that the coherence of the two great parties is due not so much to an intelligent division of public opinion upon great questions as to the keen competition of two great rival armies of politicians seeking office under the guise of allegiance to one party or the other.

[blocks in formation]

States must recollect that the democratic principles of Jefferson expressed in the Declaration of Independence, latent in the Constitution of 1789, did for at least eighty years constitute the political atmosphere of the nation, that this influence was not materially shaken by the Civil War, and that now the people are suddenly called on to decide between the political creed honoured for five generations, and the brilliant visions of a combative nationality, conceived by Hamilton, stimulated by the economic growth of the country, but little discussed since Hamilton's death in 1804.


Mr. Sydney Brooks writes on Bryanism in the Contemporary Review. He warmly protests against accepting our news and views from New York, which never looks beyond the Hudson." He deplores Lord Salisbury's openly taking sides with the Republican party and committing England to what may, by the fortunes of the polling-booth, be one day the losing side. He warns us against taking too seriously the exaggerations of American politics. He observes shrewdly that a Presidential election is America's one national sport," but declares it to be conducted with greater orderliness than our General Election. He writes to vindicate Bryanism against the hyberbolic attacks made upon it. He says:


I went through the campaign of 1896 from start to finish, travelling widely over the country, and so far from being convinced that the Bryanites were the abandoned party they were painted in New York, the conclusion I came to was that the sharp curve they took at the Chicago Convention marked the beginning of a new movement and a new force in American politics, having for their ultimate aims the emancipation of the working classes from the oppression of organised wealth and a return to a broader and more equitable democracy. Americans are anything but Radicals in their politics. Mr. Bryan is the first American Radical, and his programme shocked the sense of the country as Free Trade shocked the Tory squires of sixty years ago. But Free Trade triumphed.


Mr. Brocks declares that, apart from the excusable but too open threat to pack the Supreme Court with judges favourable to income tax, the Bryanite programme contained little out of line with Liberal principles. He


Plant the average English Liberal in the States and the odds are almost anything in favour of his joining the Democratic party. He would recognise broadly that the American Democrats are fighting the very battle for individual liberty which the English Liberals have fought and largely won.

Mr. Bryan's demand for Free Silver was no more immoral than the agitation to reopen the Indian mints to silver. Free coinage of silver rupee or silver dollar is hardly a breach of the Ten Commandments. The real meaning of the Silver agitation is thus tersely put : "Bryanism was a sort of Chartist movement fighting under an economic banner." No doubt the Bryanites do spare Great Britain in their crusade against Imperialism. But a lower tariff, if not Free Trade itself, will be hastened by the Democrats. Mr. Brooks concludes :


When Bryanism is purged of its economic heresies, we may be able to look not uncharitably on a movement that aims at making America almost as democratic as we are ourselves. And finally, a marked bias for either of the two great American parties is not the way to improve our relations with the country as a whole.


The North American Review for October carries its policy of grouping together contributions on the same subject to the extreme. No less than eleven articles deal with the Presidential Election, five of the contributors

being in favour of Mr. Bryan and six in favour of Mr. McKinley. The first is by Mr. A. E. Stevenson, Democratic Candidate for the Vice-Presidency, who defines "Imperialism" as the chief issue. Imperialism finds its inspiration in corporate greed," and threatens despotism.


Mr. B. R. Tillman describes the "Causes of Southern Opposition to Imperialism." The explanation is simple; the southerners have a race question of their own, and object to incorporating any more coloured men in the body politic:

We dread the reflex action, the example, the familiarising of our people with despotic methods. We do not want to add to the perplexities involved in the Race Question in the South the greater danger involved in the conquest and government of the Philippine Islands, outside of and contrary to the Constitution. All other issues are dwarfed, therefore, by this issue, in our minds.


Mr. Richard Croker deals with "The Interest of the First Voter." As might be expected, Mr. Croker is firmly convinced that the young American votes according to his interests and not according to his principles. Mr. Croker says that the Democratic party is the young. man's party :

In the year 1864, at the age of twenty-one, I cast my first ballot. I felt then that the Democratic party was the young man's party; that the young blood of the nation must naturally be drawn toward Democracy, which made a ready place for the new-comers, and welcomed them to a share in the management of the affairs, even in the councils, of the nation. Nor, in the thirty-six years since I cast a ballot for George B. McClellan, have I seen any good cause for changing my views on this subject. It is, indeed, my deliberate opinion that the Democratic party is the only party which offers an even chance to the first voter, not only in the political contest, but in the battle of life as well.

[merged small][ocr errors]

In Cuba, a population on the verge of revolution; a broken and bitter subject race in Porto Rico; in the Philippines, a defiant and persistent enemy. Corruption in the Administration, horrible licensed vice in Manila, the outrages of an irregular contest beyond even the cruel laws of war and the chartered savagery of barbarous allies, the treatment of Catholic Christians as heathens, the desecration of churches, rapine, ravishing, and murder; in what a horrible propaganda of wickedness the United States has been engaged for months, which are now gathering up their dread account into years. This explains the censorship which keeps the truth from America. While all these horrors are going on, because they do not come within reach of the senses, the defenders of the Administration rely upon the comfort and prosperity which are as yet superficially apparent in domestic affairs to dull the ears and steel the hearts of the American people. It is the old Imperial idea that nothing matters while there is plenty of bread and circuses. It is impossible that we should long remain thus callous; but, even should we otherwise do so, there is reason to expect that the inflation of a vastly expanded currency is about to collapse, and that wages, which have not now the purchasing power of four years ago, will be reduced or cut off, and that bad times will arouse the people to the wrong which is being done at home and abroad.


Mr. E. M. Shepard writes on Support of Mr. Bryan by Sound Money Democrats." But every road in American electioneering leads to the Imperialist problem, and Mr. Shepard's article is chiefly a protest against McKinleyist Expansion.


After Mr. Winslow, the Republicans have their innings. Postmaster-General C. E. Smith writes on the "Vital Issues of the Campaign." In Imperialism he sees merely a red herring; the real question is whether the present high level of prosperity is to be maintained :

In 1896, we had already suffered four years of hard times and low prices. Widespread bankruptcy, universal depression and a general fall of values had brought us down toward the silver level. We should have dropped, but dropped from a low plane. On the other hand, if we fall now we shall fall from a loftier height with more disastrous results. Prices, values, securities, wages are all far higher than they were in 1896. They are on the recognised and accepted gold level, with the buoyancy of unprecedented prosperity, and a fall to the silver level would produce an immeasurable shock. The sudden realisation of such a possibility through Mr. Bryan's election would immediately shatter confidence, and cause the greatest financial convulsion the country has ever seen. Our markets are more closely connected with those of Europe than ever before. With our present splendid financial standing we have become a creditor nation. The Powers of Europe are coming to us for large loans. upheaval of our markets by the threat of the silver standard would convulse the Bourses of London, Paris and Berlin, which would react here, and the sweeping extent of the financial, business and industrial calamity would be beyond calculation.



Mr. G. F. Hoar writes at more length than most of the other contributors. The treatment of the negroes by the Southern Democrats is, he says, the best proof of their incapacity to do justice to the Philippines :

I do not believe that Mr. Bryan or his associates will do better for ten million people of another race in the Philippine Islands than they have done and mean to do for ten million American -citizens in the United States.

Mr. T. C. Platt prophesies disaster in case Mr. Bryan should be elected :

A vote for Bryan is a vote to haul down the gold standard and hoist the white flag; to sail out of the path of international prosperity into the dead waters of isolation; to call down the noblest aspirations of patriotism and to proclaim our country a coward and a shirk in the family of nations!

Mr. W. M. Stuart might have been a lieutenant of Mr. Chamberlain, for he applies Mr. Chamberlain's arguments to America's conditions with skill. The Filipinos are all watching the American elections as the Boers watched ours :

Mr. Bryan seems utterly heedless of the consequences of the aid and comfort he is extending to rebels in arms. He pays ro attention to the accumulation of evidence that the guerilla warfare in Luzon is prolonged in anticipation of immediate independence in case of his election. The shooting of American soldiers and the murder and robbery of natives friendly to the United States, in order to keep up a show of resistance until the Democratic candidate becomes President, count for nothing when weighed in the balance against Mr. Bryan's ambition.


Mr. Andrew Carnegie, writing on "The Presidential Election—Our Duty," gives the following reasons for his opposition to Mr. Bryan :

We find many dangers ahead in Mr. Bryan's success. First, that of License instead of Law at home, in our very midst, through political denunciation of judicial decisions. Second, not Gold and Silver, but Silver alone, since an inferior drives out a superior currency. This means defrauding Labour to the extent of one-half of its earnings under the gold standard, and the loss to the people of one-half of their savings in banks, since these savings, which are now repayable in gold, would then be repaid in silver. Third, a Tax upon the Incomes of

citizens, inaugurating an un-American system of espionage demoralising to the national character.


Mr. James H. Eckels tells the Gold Democrats "What They Ought to Do":

The Democrat who really wishes to serve his country best will serve it and his party by voting for President McKinley's re-election. He will not do so as a Republican advocate of Republican principles, but as a Democratic protestor against Bryanistic heresies. There, is no half-way house, nor is any good to be accomplished by refraining from voting. It is a case where the surgeon must cut, and cut deeply. When Mr. Bryan is driven from power the patriotic Democrat can go back into a full fellowship with his party; for, when that time comes, the Democratic party will stand for something with the advocacy of which the patriotic Democrat will be glad to be associated. As long, however, as the present status is maintained, he can have neither have part nor lot with those who map out the policies of the Democratic party and control its act.


In the Forum for October Senator J. P. Dolliver describes "The Paramount Issues of the Campaign." The greatest of all issues is the prosperity which has been attained under the present administration and which, Mr. Dolliver says, is now jeopardised :

The question is whether the fortunate and happy condition which now surrounds the American people shall be deliberately voted down. That question concerns every business in the United States, enters into the homes of the whole community, and must be answered upon the judgment and conscience of all, It is not a party question. Four years ago we saw in the United States a victory won for sound principles, in which men of all political parties had a share. That victory had a moral significance hard to over-estimate. It was a notice served upon agitators, mischief makers, demagogues, and political leaders of all trades, that whoever attacks the integrity of American business must settle his account, not with a political party, but with the national character of America. It ought to have taught political managers also that they will not be permitted to conceal their motives, hide their purposes, and cover their plans by the invention of imaginary issues, made paramount only by the distraction and confusion of party counsels. If the blind lead the blind the Scriptures teach us to expect them both to fall into the ditch; but if the blind undertake to lead those of us who can see, it is not too much to expect that most of us will have sense enough to avoid pitfalls which have grown familiar in the glare of experience.

The Leisure Hour.

THE most striking piece of writing in the November Leisure Hour is a story by Louis Becke, "The Man in the Buffalo Hide," a narrative of the atrocious cruelty of Li Hung Chang to a prisoner whom he had sworn to the English Government to spare. The period is that of the Taeping Rebellion, and the writer absolutely vouches for the truth of the hideous tale. "The Siege of Shanghai” in 1853 is also graphically described by one who was present. In some ways it seems to have been curiously like the siege of the legations in Pekin. The recent talk of a French invasion finds a somewhat belated echo in an article "The Alarm Bell of the Century," on Buonaparte's contemplated conquest of England; and also in a paper on "French Invasion of the Isle of Wight." Mr. M. Morrison writes on "The Awakening of Russia.” We are reminded of the extraordinary interest excited by the Transvaal War by an article on, with photograph of, the Norfolk Islanders, who volunteered for South Africa, travelling 800 miles to Sydney, and paying their passage money in order to go to the front.


THE November magazines supply ugly reading for the patriot. Hoarse, may be, with cheering Birmingham Imperialism and with shouting "Rule Britannia!" he finds, to his horror, as he takes up one magazine after another, that our command of the sea-the naval bond of empire-nay, the very heart of Empire itself-are exposed to mortal menace. He is shown the nation toppling on the edge of perdition. These appalling prospects are held out to him, not by disappointed "pro-Boers or by Liberals desperate with defeat, but by approved organs of unimpeachable "patriotism." THE FRENCH DASH ON LONDON.

Most strenuous in its warning of impending doom is the National Review. Many a man, and still more many a woman, will sleep less soundly at nights after reading "the invasion problem" as stated by Captain W. E. Cairnes. The writer reiterates the fact to which we have repeatedly called attention, and which Lord Salisbury proclaimed aloud some months ago,-the defencelessness of London against a sudden raid. He paints the peril in vivid hues. Under normal conditions, he says, there are quartered in the North of France, within an hour or so by rail of the sea, at least 150,000 men: 100,000 would be needed for the raid. To convey that number across the Channel with artillery and cycles would require only shipping of 150,000 tons, and more than two-thirds of that tonnage is to be found any day in French channel ports. The force named would, the writer supposes, be largely cyclist infantry, and with them would go the new quick-firing field-guns. The British fleet would be lured, as in Fashoda days, towards the Spanish coast. When the night of the dash had come, French agents in South England would cut every wire and cable connecting the coast with London and the chief centres; the raiding force would be rushed aboard and over sea.


The writer proceeds :-

I find no difficulty in picturing to myself a great fleet of transports, herded by torpedo craft and warships, closing with the British coast in the dark hours of the morning. I can see the swift launches towing boats crammed with infantry through the smooth water into the shadow of the cliffs, and then returning empty to the transports for fresh loads. I can follow, in my mind's eye, the infantry as they quickly push a little way inland, seizing the nearest farms and cottages, placing the terrified inmates under guard, and pouncing upon any wayfarer who might give the alarm. Ere the sun was well over the horizon many thousand men and many guns would be on shore, thousands more would be following them with the utmost speed, while London, the heart of the Empire, would be slowly awakening from its slumbers to find every telegraph wire cut, possibly many railways blocked, unconscious of the enemy already firmly established on British territory.

To prevent this sudden blow, the writer urges a special set of underground wires to be laid for naval and military use alone, which would be effective for purposes of mobilisation when ordinary wires were cut. The fortifications planned ten years ago should be carried out; plans prepared for rapid concentration of regular troops; test mobilisations rehearsed; and full use made of cyclecorps. The strengthening of our fleet is also a sine

qua non.


So far Captain Cairnes. In the Nineteenth Century, Mr. H. Somers Somerset reports what he saw at the French

Army manœuvres at Chartres. It may be consoling to read that the French discarded both strategy and scouting; that no signalling was employed; that every care was taken to make the conditions as unreal as possible. The troops advanced in column and erect into the zone of fire, and stood there exposed to a frontal fire from a whole division safely ensconced behind admirable cover! Mr. Somerset, fresh from South Africa, concludes with the confident hope that "if ever there comes an invasion, when the invading force puts into practice the lessons learnt at Chartres," 77 66 our military prestige will be restored." Nevertheless, he reports that if half what is claimed for it be true their quick-firing field-gun is "immeasurably superior to ours." He also bears this witness :

It was my good fortune to have an opportunity for considerable conversation with a young and distinguished officer, and I was much struck by the quiet contempt with which he spoke of the recent achievements of the British arms, and by the eminent opinions which he quoted as his authorities. "Your navy is strong, but your army-you have no army," he would say, and then hasten back to praises of the fleet to cover the unguarded utterance. His opinion of the course of any future war between England and France was not without interest. They would draw away the fleet from the Channel and if they could keep the sea clear for forty-eight hours, a hundred thousand men might land in England. The war would then be over. "The English! I know the English," he would say. "We should kill a few, we should march on London and kill a few more, and when they saw that, the others would stop fighting and pay. We know the English. Look at their surrenders in Africa!. It is all arranged. But I hope there will never be a war. It would be a pity. I like the English very well myself. Oh yes, it would be a flying column, but what of that! There would be very little danger, and we should make our ammunition at Woolwich. And then you have no army.' This appears to be the general opinion, and an utter want of comprehension of the difficulties of the South African campaign has completely shattered our military prestige. "OUR BELATED BATTLESHIPS."

"Your navy is strong," said the Frenchman; but according to Mr. Archibald S. Hurd in the same Nineteenth Century, our navy, relatively to our combined rivals, is painfully weak. Mr. Hurd says:

For the first time the past ten or eleven years the TwoPower Standard has been abandoned, and we are face to face with an unexampled situation. . . . Hitherto contractors have been able to meet the demands of the Admiralty, and consequently Imperial interests have not suffered. For three years past, however, the naval authorities have had to lament the delay in the completion of Government work, while the ships in hand for foreign Powers have been completed within their contract dates. The programmes of the Admiralty could have been carried out had it not been for the pressure of outside work crowding the workshops and shipyards.

[blocks in formation]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »