MORAL CONDITIONS.

Mr. Harrison's conclusions are on the whole decidedly optimistic:

"As to the worship of the Almighty Dollar, I neither saw it nor heard of it; hardly as much as we do at home. I may say the same as to official corruption and political intrigue. New York, of course, has the vices of great cities, but they are not visible to the eye, and they are a drop in the ocean of the American people. Even the passing tourist must note the entire freedom of American towns from the indecencies that are

paraded in European cities. I received a deep impression that in America the relations of the sexes are in a state far more sound and pure than they are in the Old World; that the original feeling of the Pilgrim Fathers about woman and about man has sufficed to color the mental and moral atmosphere.

"I close my impressions with a sense that the New World offers a great field, both moral and intellectual, to a peaceful development of an industrial society; that this society is in the main sound, honest, and wholesome; that vast numbers and the passion of equality tend to low averages in thought, in manners, and in public opinion, which the zeal of the devoted minority tends gradually to raise to higher planes of thought and conduct; that manners, if more boisterous, are more hearty than with us, and, if less refined, are free from some conventional morgue and hypocrisy; that in casting off many of the bonds of European tradition and feudal survivals the American democracy has cast off also something of the æsthetic and moral inheritance left in the Old World; that the zeal for learning, justice, and humanity lies so deep in the American heart that it will in the end solve the two grave problems which face the future of their citizensthe eternal struggle between capital and labor, the gulf between people of color and the people of European blood."

MR. CARNEGIE ON ENGLAND'S INDUSTRIAL FUTURE.

MR. ANDREW CARNEGIE contributes to

the Nineteenth Century an article on "British Pessimism." It is no doubt well meant, but John Bull is not likely to derive much comfort from Mr. Carnegie's consolations. He is a Job's comforter, indeed, for the foundation of all his discourse is that Great Britain has been beaten in the race by the United States, and that nothing in the world can restore John Bull to the position which he formerly occupied. He tells us that comfort is near, but before England can secure it one step is indispensable. The

Briton must adjust himself to present conditions, and realize that there is no use in these days dwelling upon the past, and especially must he cease measuring his own country with the American Union. It is out of the question even to com. pare 41,000,000 people upon two islands 127,000 square miles in area with 77,000,000 upon 3,500,000 square miles.

THE LAST RELIC OF BRITAIN'S OLD PRIMACY.

Only in one particular is Great Britain still ahead of the United States. The American

citizen, man for man, is not as wealthy as the Briton, for with nearly double the population he has only one-fifth more wealth in the aggregate. In every other respect England is beaten, and all the consolation that Mr. Carnegie can give is that if the English make their minds to give up the attempt to compete with the United States, they may, if they reverse their policy, still keep ahead of the other nations of the world. Their Sir Michael Hickstrade is not expanding. Beach tells the world that the limit of present taxation is about reached, and the only consolation Mr. Carnegie can give to the Britisher, who still doggedly refuses to stop the war in Africa, is that the British people will soon be compelled to change the policy of seeking increased responsibilities throughout the world, of provoking wars and antagonizing . . . the peoples of other countries, a policy which inevitably demands the increased expenditures which have already lost for Britain her proud boast of supremacy in credit-a loss of genuine prestige." Consols have fallen from 113 to 95, and Mr. Carnegie's only wonder is that they have not fallen much farther. Formerly, Great Britain was the greatest of all the countries, and in finance, commerce, manufactures, and shipping contended successfully with all the other nations combined. Britain in the one scale, and all the

rest of the world in the other.

Now everything is changed, and Mr. Carnegie in his consolatory article thus summarizes some of the causes which lead the average Briton to feel discouraged :

"No longer Britain versus the world in anything, no longer even first among nations in wealth or credit, in manufacturing, mining, weaving, commerce. Primacy lost in all. In seagoing ships still foremost, but even there our percentage of the world's shipping growing less every year. It only increased 46,000 tons in five years, from 1894 to 1899, and was 9,000 tons less in 1898 than in 1896. Worse than all, supremacy lost upon the sea in fast monster steamships-those unequaled cruisers in war which now fly the German flag, all built in Germany; not one cor

64

In steel, the United States made 10,638,000 tons last year, and have made this year, so far, more than last, while we are falling back from our maximum of 5,000,000 tons of last year.

"In textiles, Lord Masham tells us in the Times that we are exporting less and importing more. In 1891 we exported 106,000,000; in 1899, 102,000,000 sterling; in 1891, imported of textiles 28,000,000, and in 1899, 33,000,000 sterling. His lordship avers that Great Britain has not increased her export trade one shilling for thirty years.

Financially, we are also rapidly losing primacy. The daily operations of the New York Exchange exceed those of London. Our loans at a discount find investors in the United States, which, so long our greatest debtor, is becoming our chief creditor nation."

THE ONE RAY OF HOPE.

He then proceeds to administer fine crumbs of consolation, the object of which is to prove that although British industrial supremacy is out of date, as the British army is, and their men cannot or do not work as they do in America, neither do their captains of industry compare with those of America, and they are becoming more and more dependent upon foreign nations for food, importing every year more and more machinery from America, yet there is a certain degree of hope left for them. Not only so, but he tells them that they must lessen their fondness for conquering new territory for markets abroad. England is risking a terrible war now in China for the sake of Chinese trade, the profit upon which he maintains is not worth more than

$3,000,000 or $3,500,000 a year. The only consolation which Mr. Carnegie can give to England beyond the pitiful attempt to minimize her misfortunes is that if she turn right face, repudiate Jingoism and all its works, abandon the vain dream of conquering markets by the sword, and address herself diligently to the cultivation of the home market, she may escape perdition; otherwise she is lost.

The British Government's expenditure is now close upon $15 a head, as against the United States $5, and $6.88 of the Germans. England has a deficit of $55,000,000 at a time when the American Government is, taking off $55,000,000 of taxation. "Even after British employers and employed reach the American standard of economical production, Britain will still remain heavily handicapped in the industrial race by the enormous load of taxation under which her producers labor as compared with America." England's soldiers, he says, have been playing at work. Her industrial army will, he thinks, improve, but it is the financial situation which is alarming, for it needs no prophet to foretell that a continuance of the aggressive temper which alienates other governments and peoples, and which has mistaken territorial acquisition for genuine empire-making, must soon strain the nation's power and lay upon its productive capacity such burdens as will render it incapable of retaining the present volume of trade. . . .' If ever a nation had clear and unmistakable warn ings, England has had them at the present time. Therefore, Mr. Carnegie hopes the dear old

motherland will reassert its saving common sense, and deliver itself from the doom which is inevitable if it persists in its present course.

I

IS ENGLAND HANDICAPPED BY HER
RAILROADS ?

S the economic decline of Britain now so generally taken for granted by writers in the reviews due to natural causes or to artificial hindrances? The author of " Drifting" attempts an answer to this question in the Contemporary for June. This writer declares that the English workingman holds his own, in America and elsewhere; that Great Britain's natural resources are as great as they ever were, and that Great Britain's strategical position for industry, commerce, and navigation is as advantageous as ever before. Nevertheless, nearly all productive and wealthcreating industries, except ship-building and the construction of machinery, are decaying. Only such primitive industries as mining, fishing, and cattle-breeding can now be carried on at a profit.

to Sir Hiram Maxim, the rate of transport on British railways per ton is two and a half times higher than on American railways. He complains that the English have all the disadvantages of a monopoly and none of the advantages of competition, for the railways have created a gigantic trust by their working agreement, which abolishes free competition. They have barred the most important canals or secured possession of them. They oppose secretly and indirectly the construction of light railways and electric trams, and they show the greatest enmity in Parliament and out of it to motor traffic. As a result of the crippling restrictions which they place upon electric trams, British trolleys cannot go more than eight miles an hour, while in sleepy old Italy, Austria, and Spain and Portugal they go at fifteen. In England there are not over 300 miles of electric traction, in Germany there are 3,000, and in America 20,000.

BY RAIL TO INDIA.

The

that railways throttle industries, and enormously increase the cost of living. He asserts that the railways have watered their capital to such an extent that between 1873 and 1898 the amount of addition to their capital was equivalent to very nearly $500,000 per mile for each mile of the new railways constructed. The result of this is that, while the capital of German railways is only $100,000 per mile, that of French $125,000, and that of Belgium $142,500, every mile of English railways represents a capital of $250,000. railway capital of Great Britain has been inflated to the amount of $5,670,000,000, which is three times as much as is necessary. Hence, in order to earn a fair dividend, British railways must charge at least three times the amount they need to charge. But that is not their only offense. The writer complains that the methods of management are so wasteful, and the result is that they really charge four times more than what would be a fair price.

ALLIES OF MONOPOLY.

Not only are their charges four times heavier than they ought to be, with the result that the population is congested in the city slums, but they have differential rates for the purpose of favoring the foreigner at the expense of the British producer. Apples from America and Tasmania can be sold at a profit at Covent Garden, when apples growing a few miles out of London are left to rot on the trees because the railway charges are so high that the farmer cannot af ford to send them into the market. According

paper on the geography of the northwest frontier of India to the May Geographical Journal, discusses at length in the Scottish Geographical Magazine for May the vexed question of railway connection with India. He considers three suggested routes.

ALONG THE SEACOAST?

He begins with the assurance that east of Herat there is no way open to railway construction on account of the natural obstruction offered by great mountains and high altitudes." The east of Herat being sealed, he proceeds to examine the west. He says:

"One alignment which has been suggested, and which has already received some consideration in scientific circles, is that which would connect Basra with Karáchi by way of the Persian coast and the northern shores of the Arabian Sea."

He mentions as all but decisive against this route the great natural obstruction, the Ras Malan, which "thrusts out into the ocean a gigantic headland with sheer cliffs 2,000 feet in height," backed with a mass of mountains extending far inland and some sixty miles eastward. He concludes:

"Taking the alignment as a whole, we have at least 1,600 miles of line passing through a district which is, as yet, undeveloped, and which can never develop without roads to supplement the railway; which enjoys the reputation of simmering perpetually in one of the worst atmospheres in the world; and which possesses at least one obstacle to engineering which may be pronounced

impracticable until full technical examination can be made. There is the further and final disadvantage that it competes, on almost impossible terms for success, with a sea service which is already established and is capable of much improvement. I think, then, we are justified in setting aside the coast-line project as a desirable enterprise."

THROUGH CENTRAL PERSIA?

He next calls attention to the remarkable fact that from the extreme west of Persia to Kalat and Quetta, or even to Karáchi, it would be equally possible to indicate an alignment which would never cross a difficult watershed or ascend a mountain-side." He predicts that in the progress of Asiatic commercial evolution this route will sooner or later figure as the great central line of Persia. It traverses a cultivated and in many parts a rich and prosperous region. It could readily be connected with the Indian systems. "It is bound to be one of the important lines of the future," whether constructed by Russian or English engineers. But the decisive argument against the selection of this route is the difficulty of connecting it with any European system to the north or west. "A compact band of mountain ranges" directly traverses such an alignment.

THE ROUTE VIA HERAT AND KANDAHAR?

Sir Thomas then treats of the central opening at Herat.

He says:

"While employed on the Russo-Afghan Bound. ary Commission, both as surveyor and reorganizer of the defenses of Herat, I had ample opportunity for studying that special link between East and West which has been so much in men's minds of late, and which must inevitably occupy public attention yet more closely in future.. Here, between Herat and Kanda.

har, or rather between the Russian terminus of Kushk and the British terminus of New Chaman, we have a short five-hundred-mile project offered to us of such favorable nature as we may assur edly look for in vain elsewhere. . . . From the Russian station of Kushk to Herat is roughly a distance of sixty-six miles, and midway is that great Asiatic water divide which, insignificant as it may appear when represented by the rounded crests of the Paropamisus, can be traced east and west right across the continent. The one gateway through it, which is formed by the passage of the Hari Rud River, is considerably to the west of Herat, and the direct connection between Kushk and Herat is by the Ardewán pass—a pass which is so little formidable to engineering projects that it is improbable that the circuitous route which takes advantage of the gorges of the

Hari Rud would be adopted in preference, even for a railway. . . . Taking it as a whole, it may be said that there are no formidable engineering difficulties to be encountered, but there are three large and somewhat uncertain rivers to be bridged (the Farah, Adraskand, and Helmund), all three being liable to heavy floods. being liable to heavy floods. There is an irreg ular distribution of populous and fertile districts interspersed with waste spaces, but quite enough of it to insure the success of the railway as a local venture independently altogether of its value as a link between Europe and India."

A LINK OF ANGLO-RUSSIAN GOOD-WILL.

The writer then deals with political difficulties in the way. The Ameer and the Afghans might object; but they might be induced to appreciate the solid commercial advantages of such a line, which need be no menace to their independence. Even if they could not be persuaded, the line might be run just over the border in Persian instead of Afghan territory.

Not much less serious is the objection of military experts to the construction of a line which would at once offer a strategic highway from the Russian border to India. But here there are many considerations which have not, I think, as yet been fully weighed. We have only learned quite lately much about the value of sin gle lines of railway in supporting a military advance in strength, and what we have learned has certainly not increased our appreciation of their value. A single line of railway from Herat to Kandahar would never (so far as we may be permitted to judge from South African experience) support a sufficient force to deal adequately with the strong defensive positions which would be found at the Indian end of it, even if the initial difficulty of the break of gauge between Russian and Indian systems were successfully dealt with.

"With Mr. Long, I am inclined to believe that political difficulties between Russia and India would be lessened by free intercourse and commerce between the two countries. that the more we know each other the better we shall appreciate the legitimate aims and aspirations of each, and the less likely we shall be to come into collision. I speak from a certain amount of personal experience when I say that whatever may be the state of international rivalry between the two countries, personal animosity (which is occasionally only too apparent in other parts of the continent) is entirely wanting in Russia; but perhaps the really aggressive section of the English traveling public has not yet made itself felt quite so far afield. It is, at any rate, the commercial and not the military aspect of the question which will decide when this line shall be

with the Internal

Problem," but in

reality with broad. considerations of policy.

RUSSIA'S POLICY.

"Calchas" begins by putting his ar ticle, as it were, on an international basis, by pointing out that the Russophobe talk about Russia's bad faith is really nothing more than an echo of the accusations brought by Russia against Eng.. land, and, indeed, by every nation against any other which damages its interests. It is the smallest coin of international recrimination. But "Calchas," while he rejects the charge of bad faith as childish, does not even think

Russian policy particularly able.

committed by the statesmanship of any country except France in the last fifty years. Russia, in a word, is neither so able or powerful, nor as perfidious, nor as much under her own control as we commonly think. Her expansion toward free outlets and up to solid frontiers like the Hindu Kush, or the impervious mass of China proper, has been a natural force upon which we have attempted to place unreal bounds. Russia cannot be restrained by artificial restrictions. To have imposed them in the past has argued more folly on our part than overflowing them has implied the absence of a moral sense on hers."

Russia has not

only acquired less than Great Britain, but she has done so, not by virtue of any exceptional diplomacy, but by the operation of natural laws which the stupidest diplomatists could hardly have prevented.

It might be strongly argued on the contrary, as will better appear upon a further page, that Russian diplomacy has never won a single great game of statecraft except when her natural position has placed all the trumps in her hand. The neutrality in 1870, which had the Treaty of Berlin as its consequence in 1878, was probably the most remarkable and far-reaching blunder

THE REAL PROBLEM.

Russia's real problem, says "Calchas," is that she is now approaching her natural obstacles, which can only be overcome, and then partly, by a development of internal forces. In short, she has not got capital, nor education, nor high internal organization. For the se

reasons, Calchas makes the very original but probably true statement that Russia has not progressed in power, and that her position is weaker in relation to the other European powers than it was a hundred years ago. That Russia was illiterate then was no drawback, for all That she was a poor

countries were illiterate. agricultural community only meant that she was in the same state as Prussia. In war, this low organization and ignorance tend to weaken Russia, especially in view of the recent developments shown by the Boer war. Russia has not accumulated capital, and has now only about 2,000,000 people engaged in the accumulation of capital by means of industry, as against 26,000,000 in Germany.

RUSSIA AT PEACE.

For this reason, Russia is weak, and wants peace to develop herself internally up to the