the open-door policy-a policy which, even if partially conformed to, tends to promote the possibility of a preservation of Chinese territorial integrity. At the opening of the present war between Japan and Russia, it was our Government that addressed the Powers with a view to securing their approval of the proposition that Chinese neutrality should be respected by both belligerents. That this step was taken at the suggestion of Germany does not diminish the credit of it; rather does it testify to the strong position which the United States Government is recognized as holding in relation to the great problem of limiting the area of the war in the Far East, and of preserving the existence of China. The proposition of the United States was assented to by all the Powers, including Japan and Russia, and it cannot be doubted that this has had a powerful moral effect upon the conduct of both belligerents.

The latest step taken by Mr. Hay has been in continuance of the consistent purpose which has animated him throughout, and has been attended, it seems, with the same remarkable success which has in so extraordinary a degree accompanied his efforts all along. Reports had been received by the State Department which indicated that, at the conclusion of the war, whatever the terms made by Japan and Russia as between themselves, the opportunity or pretext was likely to be seized by several of the European Powers to pounce upon a portion of the territory of China, each for itself, by way of preserving the balance of power. The inherent probability of such action was quite sufficient to give

weight to the reports. The European Powers are in a state of constant readiness, and constant eagerness, to grab at such chances as a country like China from time to time affords. A general onslaught of this sort at the close of the present war would mean the beginning of troubles whose duration no man can predict. Mr. Hay proposes to avert this if he can. He has accordingly addressed a circular note to the Powers other than the two belligerents, in which he asks them to give assurances that at the close of the war the integrity of Chinese territory shall be respected. It is stated that favorable answers have been received from the British, French, German and Italian Governments-presumably all the Powers addressed. While it would, of course, be a rose-colored view that should regard this paper defense of Chinese territorial integrity as an impregnable bulwark, there can be no doubt of the importance of the obstacle which it will present to any scheme for the dismemberment of China that may be brewing in the minds of European diplomats. It is infinitely easier to slip into a position of aggression when you have the excuse that you are only doing what you have every reason to suspect your neighbor will do than it is to brazenly assert a claim which you have explicitly renounced in advance, your competitors in the land-grabbing game having done likewise, and the facts having been published to all the world. Mr. Hay has been carefully watching this great world-game, and he seems to have made the right move at the right time all through it. If, through the instrumentality of this latest international assurance, he shall have

on the subject of the potentialitie forty or above sixty, the addition taken the shape of a caveat agains marks too literally. Instead of thi that what he said was precisely and, in particular, he reiterates w tion the assertion concerning the what has actually been achieved by ing the age of forty. "Take the achievement," said the distinguish the passage which he reaffirms, " ence, in art, in literature-subtract men above forty, and while we sh treasures, even priceless treasures, tically be where we are today.

name a great and far-reaching conq which has not been given to the wo whose back the sun was still shining moving, vitalizing work of the w tween the ages of twenty-five and be seen that in the leading sentence human accomplishment is covered entire range. Whether in the field that of thought, the work done by ing the age of forty might, if we ar

Osler's word for it, have been wiped out without seriously affecting the progress or the history of the race. And yet the proposition is one that cannot be seriously considered for a moment without being dismissed as utterly discordant with the facts.

It was on Washington's birthday that Doctor Osler made his speech. At the outbreak of the War of the Revolution, Washington was 43 years old; can any of us be quite sure that the outcome of that epoch-making struggle would have been the same that the world would be just where it is, as Doctor Osler says-if in the field of action some other than Washington had occupied Washington's place? Nor is this all. The successful termination of the war by no means insured the successful establishment of the American Republic; and it is the judgment of sober historians that it was Washington's wisdom, virtue, foresight, influence over men, which, throughout the six desperately trying years between the end of the war and the adoption of the Constitution, was the great and controlling factor in making the formation of the Union possible. Is it quite certain, again, that, if the active career of Bismarck and of Moltke had closed at the age of forty, the dream of the German Empire would have been realized, and would the world be just where it is now had this been otherwise? Surely, in the domain of “action," the past century and a quarter can show no more lasting results, and at the same time none achieved more distinctly by the commanding superiority of single individuals, than are shown in the record of Washington from the age of 43 to that of 57, of Bismarck from 47 to