another stream. The question was referred to the Czar. The Czar declined to accept the task unless he was allowed to go into the whole question of the frontier. This was conceded. He decided that the Dutch were in the right, and that their river was the true boundary. But he added to his award the proviso-which is apt to the business that we now have in hand-that his award was to be without prejudice to the rights acquired bonâ fide by French settlers in the limits of the territory in dispute. This comes to pretty much the same thing as Mr. Olney's proviso; and who would say that the French would not have been wrong to refuse arbitration, lest they should be breaking the careers and possibly ruining the fortunes of the settlers whose rights the Czar thus safeguarded?"

THE QUESTION OF A GENERAL TREATY. Then turning to the question of a general treaty of arbitration, he notes that both negotiators are agreed in excluding questions which involve the honor and integrity of the nation. He says:

66

The matter is one of infinite delicacy and difficulty. In the Swiss-American draft treaty the parties agree to submit to arbitration all difficulties that may arise between the two states 'whatever may be the cause, the nature, or the object of such difficulties.' This is obviously impracticably wide for our case. In the plan adopted at the Pan-American Conference of 1890, the only excepted questions were to be such as, 'in the judgment of any one of the nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence.' This is a qualification which, in controversies between us and the United States, would be merely futile."

But, if it is agreed that the phrase "questions of honor and integrity" should stand, there arises the second question as to who shall decide what questions involve "honor and integrity:"

disputed occupation. There is something like this, though not quite the same, in the sixth article of the Pan-American project. At any rate this ground of anxiety might be removed by the acceptance in the treaty of an authentic map of existing territories. So far as I am aware, the not very momentous dispute about the Alaskan boundary is the only ragged edge in territorial matters between Great Britain and the United States."

Mr. Morley touches lightly upon the question of the constitution of the tribunal, the right of appeal, and the rules which it would have to administer. He says:

"The truth is that the creation of a permanent tribunal would be the best way of improving the rules of what is called international law. Sir Henry Maine has some weighty remarks on the advantages of a permanent court or board of arbitrators over occasional adjudicators appointed ad hoc."

'The things to be done are to frame the exception clause, which, though difficult, is not beyond the expert skill of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Olney; and to shape the constitution and functions of the tribunal, as to which the two ministers could evidently come to an understanding in twenty-four hours. If these two things are done, the award should be final, or else we might almost as well or better leave the project alone.

66

To leave it alone would, in the opinion of the present writer, be nothing short of a disaster to one of the greatest causes now moving the western world. If Lord Salisbury fails, the question, we may be sure, will be set fatally back for many a year to come."

Mr. Norman's Warning.

Mr. Henry Norman, writing upon the arbitration negotiations and the hitch about the settled districts, says:

"The American brief of Venezuela denies categorically that there are any British settlers there at all. The simplest way of settling this point would seem to be for three men, representing Great Britain, the United States, and Venezuela, to go themselves to the territory in question and see with their own eyes whether there are any settlers or not. This is probably far too simple a course to be adopted. I am only anxious that Englishmen should not believe that the storm has blown over, when there is only a lull."

A Prophecy of the Issue.

The editor of the New England Magazine recalls in his July number a prophecy uttered by Edward Everett Hale when preaching in 1889. It reads curiously in the light of the last eight months : "The twentieth century will apply the word of the Prince of Peace to international life. The beginning will not be made at the end of war, but in some time of peace. The suggestion will come from one of the six great powers. It will be from a nation which has no large permanent military establishment; that is to say, it will probably come from the United States. This nation, in the most friendly way, will propose to the other great Powers to name each one jurist of world-wide fame, who with the other five shall form a permanent tribunal of the highest dignity. Everything will be done to give this tribunal the honor and respect of the world. As an international court, it will be organized without reference to any especial case under discussion. Then it will exist. Gradually the habit will be formed of consulting this august tribunal in all questions before states. More and more will men of honor and command feel that an appointment to serve on this tribunal is the highest human dignity. Of such a tribunal the decisions, though no musket enforce them, will be one day received of course."

THE FUTURE OF THE ANGLO-SAXON RACE.

SIR

IR WALTER BESANT, writing to the North American Review for August, indulges in prophecy concerning the nature of coming AngloSaxon dominion on this planet. Sir Walter expects to see republicanism grow in all parts of the British Empire, and as republicanism grows there will result a cleavage between the colonies, becoming every year wider and wider. "We shall then-say in fifty years-see six great English-speaking nations; every one will be more populous than France at the present day; filled with people who have absorbed all foreign admixtures; governed by the same laws; inheriting all the Anglo-Saxon qualities, virtues and weaknesses.

"The people of these nations will be unlike each other in peculiarities, due to climate; those of tropical Queensland, for instance, will differ in certain respects from the inhabitants of Toronto or Quebec. But in mind and in manners they will be all alike."

Our highest endeavor in the future, says Sir Walter, must be to make war forever impossible between these nations, and to this end he proposes a permanent court of arbitration, the mere existence of which, he thinks, will prevent cases of difference from arising.

A VISION OF PEACE ON EARTH,

"Now suppose such a board of arbitration to be established. What do we see in the future? The

six nations will be separate, yet united; each will be free to work out its own development in its own way; it will be impossible for them to quarrel; they will understand that free trade between themselves will be the best in their own interests; their press will be courteous, each to each; they will be rivals only in art, science and literature. Above all, they will form a firm alliance, offensive and defensive, with such a navy that all the world united in arms would be powerless against them. And, as an example for all the world to see, there will be the great federation of our race, an immense federation, free, law-abiding, peaceful, yet ready to fight; tenacious of old customs; dwelling continually with the same ideas; keeping, as their ancestors from Friesland did before them, each family as the unit; every home the centre of the earth; every township of a dozen men the centre of the government."

IN

UNITED STATES COAST DEFENSES.

N the August Peterson, Frank Heath, Jr., presents the argument for improved seacoast defenses, taking pains at the same time to point out the futility of increased expenditures by the United States for a navy, or even for land forces, while our coasts are exposed to foreign attack as at present.

'Because Great Britain has such an enormous sea power and holds supremacy on the ocean, is it, therefore, necessary that we adopt England as our standard, or devote all our efforts to securing a navy competent to contend with hers? Because Germany's chief attention is concentrated on the strength and discipline of her army, is it, therefore, necessary to adopt her as our standard of strength for land forces? It is unnecessary that we follow the lines of either, but it is necessary that we have a strong and proper system of defense and fully utilize the appropriations to the best advantage in securing it. The question arises, then, what is to the best advantage?

"Great Britain is an empire; her colonies are scattered over both hemispheres; her commerce extends to every quarter of the globe. Each colony is dependent upon the others for support. This necessitates a great foreign traffic and a correspondingly large commercial marine. Thus she requires a navy proportionally large to protect both this marine and the scattered colonies. The foreign possessions of Germany are few, if any, when compared with those of Great Britain. With the exception of a very small seacoast, she is entirely surrounded by foreign powers of a more or less aggressive nature. Hence it is that she devotes her attention more to the development of her army than to that of her navy. Thus we see each of these nations carefully defending itself according to the situation. The United States may almost be regarded as a continent in themselves. They have an Atlantic seaboard of over 3,000 miles, without taking into con

sideration the extent of gulf coast on the south. Bordering on the Pacific is a coast line of nearly 5,000 miles. Both on the eastern and western coasts we are over 3,000 miles distant from any power that would necessitate the enlarging of our army if we were called upon to defend ourselves.

"On our seacoast there are at least thirty ports which demand, as an absolute necessity, the most modern means of protection, together with seventy others which also demand protection to a smaller extent. It is these great cities situated on our seacoast that hold the welfare of our country at stake. Nearly ten years ago Samuel J. Tilden wrote to Carlisle showing that in twelve United States seaports the property exposed to destruction by hostile fleets amounted in value to $5,000,000,000, and this property has since then increased one-quarter in value.

DO WE NEED MORE SHIPS?

"The greater part of our foreign traffic is carried on in foreign vessels, while our coastwise commerce, although enormous, in case of war could be easily carried on by rail. The United States in time of war could be entirely independent of other countries for supplies of any importance or for general maintenance. These facts show that we would have no commerce requiring protection by the navy. We have no colonies to protect. Thus, our only need of ships is to represent us as a nation and to give what little protection is necessary to American subjects abroad. Our present navy is fully large enough to accomplish any work of this kind if called upon ; and any additional money spent at the present time for an increase in the number of these vessels is that much less toward seacoast fortifications as a more perfect and necessary means of defense.

"Let us suppose one of our largest ports to be protected by naval vessels with no other support, and that they suddenly find themselves confronted by an opposing fleet. The foreign fleet would congregate all its forces at one point, and would thus be more powerful than our own, which must be necessarily scattered to protect the other important points along the coast. Defeat would be inevitable. The port would soon fall into the hands of the enemy. Tremendous indemnities could be exacted, which would not only increase the enemy's power of aggression, but cripple our own power of resistance. But what would the enemy's chances be if an attempt was made to enter one of our ports against a heavy fire from fortifications protecting the channel? Realizing the effectiveness of land guns, the enemy would necessarily keep at as long range as possible, thus not only diminishing its power of offense, but increasing that of our own defense. With the range of fire thus extended, the secondary battery on board a ship is practically useless. There is also more of a certainty of ain on land than on water. The constant rolling and motion of the vessel takes away the great accuracy of fire possessed by the heavy guns mounted on land. The pene

trative power of all guns has been so accurately calculated that a fortification may be constructed able to resist the shot from navy guns of the highest power.

Coast fortifications are the best means of defense for the United States; but assuming that the navy is a better means, it would be necessary to strongly fortify our harbors as a place of refuge for vessels that might be overmatched, others that are disabled, and as coaling stations and depots of supply. If there were no harbor of defense our vessels would be exposed to capture, and if captured would be utilized as agents against ourselves. Again we see the absolute necessity for fortifications; and even if the navy should be adopted as the supreme means of defense, it certainly would not long hold this supremacy without the land fortifications to support and protect it."

Mr. Heath then shows that the total expenditure required to protect the port of Baltimore, as estimated by the Fortifications Board, is only about two-thirds the cost of a single battle ship (the Indiana) without her armament.

66

"When the naval militia movement started, about six years ago, the promoters of the project expected to form a naval reserve, and designated the new forces by that name. It took but a short time, however, to demonstrate that such a movement cannot become national in its dimensions at its very inception. It is necessary to start by interesting a particular town or city in the movement; other towns or cities take up the interest; the representatives of the various towns finally interest the members of the state legislature, and so state aid is lent to the movement. Other states follow, and the representatives of these states in Congress enlist the aid of their fellow members, and congressional action follows, resulting in a national organization The process is gradual and evolutionary.

"To day we have in twelve states a naval militia in the true sense of the words, and at the last session of Congress a bill was introduced at the suggestion of the Navy Department, looking to the enrollment of the National Naval Reserve.

"The necessity for a naval militia is apparent. It needs no argument to show the need for the existence of a land militia, and the necessity for a naval militia is still greater. Most Americans, whether from the seaboard or the interior, know something about the handling of fire-arms, and the experience of the Civil War showed that our citizens soon be

came efficient soldiers, even in the days when battles were fought in solid and precise formations. It can hardly be doubted, in view of our national characteristics, that we should turn out better soldiers in a shorter period in these days of extended order and skirmish fighting. Few of our people, however, have the training that would fit them to readily become sailors. The duties of the sailor are more varied than those of the soldier, and in consequence it takes longer to make a man an efficient sailor than it does to make him an efficient soldier.

"Although at the breaking out of the Civil War our merchant marine was in condition to furnish us with hundreds of sailors where to-day it cannot furnish us with one, great difficulty was experienced during that war in obtaining men for service aboard ships. Should war break out to-day the difficulty would be infinitely greater, and it is to meet this difficulty that the naval militia is designed.

66

The popularity of the movement and the growth of the force have been as striking as was the neces sity which called it into being. Though barely five years have elapsed since the first naval militia organizations were mustered into service, we have today a well organized and fairly well armed and equipped body, equal in strength to one-half of the regular navy.

Lieutenant Stayton finds a reason for the growing popularity of this form of service in the variety which characterizes the drills. "In the state of New York, for instance, the National Guardsman has about twenty-five drills during the winter's drill season, and all of them are as infantry; meantime his brother of the sea militia has also twenty-five drills, but they include infantry, artillery, seamanship, signals, torpedoes, fencing, great guns, secondary batteries, rowing and sailing. The drilling is usually by squads, so that during one evening a man will be exercised in two or three different branches of his duties."

Each summer the naval militiaman has a week's tour of duty on a man-of-war, where he drills with the modern high-power guns and learns something about the new engines, search-lights, and torpedoes. In the vicinity of New York City there is much summer cruising in navy cutters up Long Island Sound and in other directions.

"The routine for the present summer shows that the Navy Department, too, is ready to take the third step which will insure national uniformity. Heretofore the department has sent men of-war each summer to take the different organizations off on short cruises, but in no case have the organizations from two or more states been brought into co-operation. This year an important advance has been made by arranging that the naval militias of the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York shall meet on the men-of-war, rendezvousing at Gardiner's Island, near the eastern entrance to Long Island Sound.”

THE

WHAT WAR WILL BE.

A Ghastly Description of Things to Come. HERE is a very striking article in the Fortnightly Review by Mr. H. W. Wilson, entitled 66 "The Human Animal in Battle. Mr. Wilson, the author of "Ironclads in Action," draws a very sombre picture as to the extent to which modern science and the conditions of modern campaigning tend to make war more horrible than it has ever been before.

No words can depict the uproar and confusion of a battlefield. The tremendous thunder of the guns, the roar of bursting shells, the incessant roll of musketry, the dense clouds of dust, the yells of the combatants, the shrieks and groans of the wounded, the ghastly human fragments strewing the earth, the smell of sweat and powder, make up an appalling ensemble. With smokeless powder the whole battlefield will be visible, and there will be no screen between the fighters on either side."

THE DECAY OF RELIGION.

But that is not the only cause which aggravates the conditions of the battlefield of the future :

"The decay of religion, which is so widespread a feature of our times, has contributed to the downward progress of the individual, by making death more horrrible because of the greater uncertainty of the future beyond the grave. The problem is how to implant courage and avoid panic. Courage is simply control of the nerves, and is largely due to the habit of confronting danger. This much is certain, that the future battle will be a severer trial to the nerves than any past encounter. To meet that trial the nerves of the modern civilized man are less fit than they were in the past."

HUNGER AND SLEEPLESSNESS.

Mr. Wilson points out what is too often true, that in any comparison between civic courage and that dispayed by the soldier on the field of battle, the latter is as a rule tested under more trying physical conditions than the former:

"The soldier, as often as not, has to fight with empty stomach, without sleep, ill-clothed, and sickly in health. Hunger and sleeplessness are sore enemies to courage. Tents are rarely carried in modern armies, and on the bivouac no shelter is to be had. Dirt and its concomitant vermin are not less distressing to men accustomed to cleanliness. Worst of all is the want of food. The German 2nd Corps at Gravelotte marched twenty-three miles without food or water, and then engaged in the terrific combat in the Mance ravine. The French army of Marshal MacMahon, for whole days before the Sedan had received no proper rations, and ate what it could, which was very little. To Lee's Southern infantry raw onions were 'angel's food,' in their own expressive phrase; a few handfuls of unground maize or corn, a scanty rasher of rancid bacon at rare intervals, were all they had to eat. When

they received three days' rations they cooked and ate them, preferring to carry them inside and go hungry the two following days. They devoured

WHAT THE CUBAN INSURRECTION MEANS. A Good Word for Spain.

them. Two days' sleepless marching and fighting without food was, we are told, not uncommon. The soldiers slept as they tramped the dusty roads, and at each halt men fell down in a dead slumber."

NO AID FOR THE WOUNDED.

The greatest change for the worse in modern warfare is the impossibility of aiding the wounded: "But war would be comparatively humane if it were not for the fate of the wounded. In future battles, with the great range of the present smallbore rifle, it will be almost impossible to give satisfactory first aid on the battlefield. Those who creep for shelter from the sun to some copse or cornfield, who escape the anxious search of the ambulances, are the true victims of war. 'In the burning heat of mid-day, in the dark shadows of midnight, crouched on stones and thistles in the stench of corpses around and of their own putrefying wounds -a prey while still quivering for the feasting vultures,' without water, without food, without help of man to assuage their torments, what to them is the meaning of glory, and what in this life their reward? At Sadowa sixty wounded were found in a barn six days after the battle. They had lived God knows how. When found, the state of their wounds was such that not one of them could hope to survive. In the terrible battles in the Wilderness during the Civil War, the woods caught fire as the two sides fought, and the wounded were consumed by the flames. Dreadful perhaps; yet was this fate more dreadful than that of those who had crawled clear of the thickets and were eaten alive by the beetles o' nights?'"'

Mr. Wilson concludes his article with the practical suggestion:

"No wonder that with knowledge such as this, at the Geneva Conference Mr. Twining proposed to end the miseries of the hopelessly wounded by giv. ing the coup de grâce. The time may come when such a measure will be permitted; now it shocks our squeamish humanity, which cannot bear to read of such things, still less to think of them. The time, too, may come when we shall devise some means of saving life in a battle at sea, or arrive at some international agreement. When I recently urged this necessity, a critic objected that in battle ships have other things to do than to rescue the drowning. As if it were not possible to have Red Cross vessels with each squadron, whose one work should be lifesaving.'

"THE Irish Idylls," by Jane Barlow, form the subject of an interesting study by M. Aug. Glardon in the July number of the Bibliothèque Universelle In the same number M. Numa Droz has some reflections on Geneva and Zürich, the exhibitions of 1896 and 1883.

who contributes to the New Review a very rabid article in defense of the Spaniards in Cuba. We quote the following passages, which will naturally excite some indignation on this side of the Atlantic:

"To talk of the present struggle as a fight for liberty is to burlesque words out of all meaning. It is no longer (if it ever was) in question whether or not the descendants of Spanish settlers shall be free; the question is whether Cuba shall, or shall not, be a civilized, European state, or a barbaric African Alsatia. The Spanish West Indian is as free as any British West Indian; he is directly represented at Madrid by senators and deputies of his own election, as no West Indian is represented in the Mother of Parliaments; he finds a ready hearing for his grievances, and an almost unhealthy anxiety to redress them. Cuba is indeed the spoiled child

of Spain; and the most burning wrong adduced by her effervescent orators is that whites and blacks drink-for, as Mr. Ballou records, your Cuban is a rare ginslinger-at different bars. This, no doubt, is a grievance of a kind, but it is an insufficient pretext for civil war. For years Spain has spent herself in strenuous efforts to blot out the memories of old wrongs and to reconcile her colonists to her dominion. And, on the whole, she has governed Cuba with rare benignity and wisdom. The old press laws are abolished; the suffrage has been extended with an almost reckless generosity; every man stands equal in the eye of the law. Taxes and customs duties are still levied in what seems to us an arbitrary way; but the comparison, to be just, must be made not between England and Cuba, but between Cuba and Nicaragua. The bald truth is that the movement in Cuba, so far as it is genuine, is not based upon administrative grievances; its sole object is the extirpation of the white man. More than four-fifths of the Cuban rebels are negroes and halfbreeds-quadroons, mulattoes, griffes-bent upon the establishment of a black republic.

The insurrection, he maintains, is fed by specula tors in the United States. His paper comes practically to this, that the war of independence, in hope of which so many appeals are made to the sympathy of the people, is nothing more or less than a war of extermination waged by blacks against whites and helped on by rogues in New York and elsewhere for purposes of greed:

"The genuine filibuster's sentiment is candidly avowed in Mr. Bloomfield's Cuban Expedition: ' 'The people in New York who fitted out this vessel care about as much for Cuban independence as I do, and that's to make as many dollars as they can out of it. As long as the Cubans can raise the spondulix they'll get plenty of people to fit out expeditions for them.' And the speaker goes on to brag