« PreviousContinue »
stitution, which establishes law, holds contracts inviolable, and ensures the reign of peaceful government. Fortunately, the National Democratic and the Republican parties are at one in defence of the only three vital principles at issue in this portentous contest-the maintenance, in all their rights and powers, of the Supreme Court, the National Executive, the Gold Standard. The chief rock with which the citizen has now to concern himself are the assaults upon the Supreme Court. The great arbiter, whose decisions must be accepted by all, if there is to be peace, is not only assailed, but its independence, upon which just decisions depend, is to be swept away; its members are to be subjected to popular election, and dependent upon the number of votes for their places from time to time. This is a question compared with which even the standard of value cannot be classed.
A PROPHET OF IMPENDING REVOLUTION. A writer in the Progressive Review takes the gloomiest view of the probable result of the struggle in the United States. He dwells at great length upon the lawless violence of the plutocracy, and in the course of his observations tells the following startling story about the railway riot in Chicago in 1894:
The New England Magazine, in answer to the common charge that the railway strikers were the rioters who burned the cars, and committed the acts of violence, says the rioters were not the working men, but the “hoodlums," and continues: “ Colonel Wright would tell our Boston newspapers that not even the hoodlums instigated the burning of the mass of cars, but that it was instigated by the railway managers themselves as the surest way to bring the Federal troops and defeat the strike.” The Colonel Wright referred to is the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, Chief of the Bureau of Labour Statistics of the United States. The multitudinous echoes of this riot were flashed around the world to fire the heart of property against the people. But the editor of the New England Magazine, in his astounding declaration that Mr. Wright, who made an official investigation of this strike for the Government, became convinced that the riots were the work of the railway managers, is speaking by the card, as many people in Boston and elsewhere know. This strike is now two years gone. The City of Chicago is liable for damages to the last cent for injury done to the railroads. But those corporations have never pressed a single claim to trial. They do not dare to give a chance for the evidence to come out that the violence was theirs. The very name of the man who organised this: anarchy for the railroads is said to be known.
If such things are possible, it is not very wonderful
workmen. On the other side a black, lowering sky shows the words “ Depression, 1892-1896,” beneath which is a scene of utter desolation, with closed factories, idle railroads, farm implements lying idle in the fields, fences down, and hungry workmen and their families clamouring for bread. Another very effective poster was entitled “The Tariff is an Issue.” This emphasised the same idea, as did also a popular fourcoloured poster of smaller size called “The Lockout is Ended; He holds the Key.” Many smaller cartoons, some black and white and some in colours, were issued, but none aroused the enthusiasm inspired by the coloured posters suggesting industrial subjects.
III.-PROPHETS. Ex-President Harrison enters the Presidential campaign in the pages of the Forum, and begins the October number with a solemn anathema upon the " compulsory dishonesty ” which he finds to be the purport of Mr. Bryan's agitation. It is to him only another instance of the old tactics, “How much ovest thou unto my lord ?” And he said, “A hundred measures of oil." And he said unto him, “ Take thy bill and sit down quickly and write fifty.”
Mr. Bryan's speeches seem to the ex-President to “affirm the legal and moral right of the United States to degrade its money standard, to pay its obligations in the debased coins, and to give to its citizens the right to discharge their debts in the same way.” Thus “dishonesty is not made optional, but compulsory." Debtors will be compelled to pay in the new and debased dollar. The argument that free coinage will raise the value of silver to the 16:1 standard is not seriously put forward by Mr. Bryan, nor do his followers desire to pay their debts in full account to the present gold standard. Yet “if it had been suggested to Hamilton or to Jefferson that while the commercial ratio between silver and gold was 31 to 1 we should coin silver dollars at the rate of 16 to 1, they would have suggested the writ de lunatico inquirendo."
A PROPHET OF ANOTHER STRIFE. In the North American Review for October Mr. Andrew Carnegie chirrups aloud for joy at the prospect of Mr. McKinley's victory. He says :
The United States stands to-day once more before the world seen and known of all men as a nation which depends not upon any one party to maintain uninpaired its conservative Con.
is becoming so intolerable, that many are beginning to question whether there is any necessity to liave a President at all
EFFECT ON THE CAUSE OF BIMETALLISM. Mr. Moreton Frewen writes enthusiastically from Chicago to the National Review. “ The contending forces," he says, "are the forces of Discipline against Enthusiasm ; and of Money against Men." For the sake of the public tranquillity later on, he wishes Mr. Bryan a happy issue. He believes that free coinage in America will secure bimetallisin. The editor seems to share the same hope, for in an “Episode” he says:
If the United States declared for a ratio of 16 to 1, and opened her mints on those terms, she would probably fail to maintain it, and there would be a temporary premium on gold, but her action of remonetising silver would greatly appreciate that metal's value, and whereas it now stands at about 30 to 1, free coinage would probably raise it to 20 to 1. This would force open the Indian mints, and a further appreciation of silver would ensue, raising the market rate to about 18 to 1unless the law of supply and demand is to be banished to Saturn as the asylum of common-sense. France would probably be wise enough to jump at the opportunity thus afforded, and would come to terms with the United States; the only point to be discussed being whether the ratio of the Latin Union (15} to 1) should be restored, or whether the American ratio of 16 to 1 should be adopted. Englishnen may perhaps entertain the hope, should the question reach this stage, that a Cabinet containing Mr. Balfour and such open-minded men as Lord Salisbury, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Goschen, and Lord Lansdowne, would not allow itself to be cowed by the ignorant ravings of Lombard Street.
CULE OF PO
A POPULAR SILVER POSTER.
inconclusive, as so far have been all the American agitations except that against slavery. On the tariff for one hundred years, paper money for thirty years, the banks for fifty-six years, silver for twenty-three years, railroad control, state and national, for twenty-five years, trusts for ten years-on all of these the people have been trying to get reform, and on none of them have they reached it. There must be more failures yet before the issue and the remedy become clear in the popular mind. Side by side with the practical failure of these merely political efforts is rising more unmistakably into view a very radical thought, spreading among the people. This becomes more manifest with each of these defeats. The issue is by more and more people seen to be a fundamental one between those who hold the social power of their wealth as a feudal and personal privilege, and those who insist that there is no social power not subject to social control. But if the Free Silver movement goes down in November, as now seems likely, there will be a re-alignment, on more radical lines than ever, of the forces that insist on social control of social power. The Free Silver movement will seem conservatism itself to that which will take its place.
WHY A PRESIDENT AT ALL Rev. A. Holden Byles discusses in Cosmopolis how presidents are made. He reports that:
Not a few of the more thoughtful Americans are beginning to question whether it was not a mistake on the part of the framers of the Constitution to give their Presidents so short a term of office. This was indeed the opinion of the most clearsighted among their own number, and Hamilton went so far as to propose that the head of the State should be appointed for life, subject only to good behaviour. But though he was defeated, there was surely a middle course between his proposal and the four years' term that was finally adopted. Under present conditions, this term is evidently much too short. The country has scarcely recovered from one attack of fever before it becomes the victim of another. This quadrennial nuisance
From the Press (New York).]
UNCLE SAM: “What! Get into a thing like that because you say it is all right? Not this year, my boy.”
THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION. VR. E. J. Dillon's PLEA FOR Anglo-Russian GOODWILL.
The first place in the Contemporary is given to a paper by Mr. E. J. Dillon, on Russia and Europe. He dismisses as childish tall talk the project of our isolated action in Armenia, and is scarcely less civil to the statesmen's policy of waiting on the concert of Europe. His counsel is for an Anglo-Russian understanding :
Russia is now recognised by all as the predominant factor of the situation. Whatever other effects the Tsar's trip may have had, it has brought home to the dullest apprehension the important fact that the hegemony of Europe has passed away from Germany to her north-eastern neighbour. This important change took place long before it became visible to all. The recent travels of Nicholas II. merely revealed the fact that the Tsar is at present the arbiter of war and peace, while he or his successor is believed to be destined to become one day the Jawgiver of Europe and of Asia. . . . At present, supported by the mightiest army, she is absolutely invulnerable and virtually irresistible.
Mr. Dillon cogently insists that “Russia's oft-repeated desire for peace is genuine." She has learned “the uses of unbroken tranquillity and the benefits of many-sided development.”
At present her ministries teem with schemes for reform and enterprise in every branch of the administration. . . . . She is constructing vast railways, strategical and commercial, spanning broad rivers with bridges, disciplining her army, strengthening her line of fortifications, increasing her fleet, improving her finances, affording increased facilities for tralle, assimilating the various tribes and nations of which her subjects are composed, colonising Siberia and Manchuria, kneading the Balkan States of Slav nationality, sending her Far Eastern neighbours into hypnotic slumber, and carrying out endless plans and projects which require time, money, and prolonged peace.
Therefore she is in no mood to wage war with Turkey. Turkey is rapidly ripening for Russia even now, and will certainly in due time fall into her lap without the European tree once being shaken. To fight the Sultan now would be to bring Hungary to Saloniki, cripple
to Saloniki cripple Russia for a quarter of a century and spoil her Far Eastern game :
Hence Russia's anxiety to maintain the peace, nay, to induce what may be termed military catalcpsy and political Van Winkledom in Europe, crystallising the actual state of affairs here while studiously keeping things Asiatic in chronic flux ready for her mark and mould.
The “Concert” is agreed on peace but ou nothing else. We should have a larger area of agreement with Russia aud France.
The Franco-Russian Alliance is not more natural or more beneficial to the two contracting parties than would be an Anglo-Russian understanding.
The anti-English tone of the Russian press represents neither Toar nor people. The inveterate ambition of Russia to acquire the whole of Asia, India included, recognizes that that goal is centuries distant, and need not affect present relations with Britain. Prince Lobanoff's policy was not anti-English so much as intensely Russian. And “Russia's interests clash less with the essential aims and aspirations of the British Empire than with those of the French Republic.” To his whole proposal the writer adds the condition “ provided always that Russia's schemes afford her no adequate grounds for refusing an
arrangement which on the face of it bids fair to confer lasting benefits upon both nations."
M. DE PRESSENSÉ ON ENGLAND'S ALTERNATIVES. The first place in the Nineteenth Century is given to the same theme with variations. Mr. Dillon, as we have seen, suggests an Anglo-Russian as preferable to FrancoRussian entente. M. de Pressensé, foreign editor of the Temps, urges the entry of England as third member in the alliance of France and Russia. “If there is henceforth a fact solidly settled among the data of European politics, it is that France and Russia have tied a loveknot between themselves, and formed for the nonce an indissoluble league.” Over against the Triple Alliance stands this Dual Alliance: the appearance of the new constellation requires England to forsake her erratic and solitary orbit. “ Splendid isolation ” means simply “ successive and contradictory flirtations.” It is time for England to make her choice between the duplice and tho triplice. “She must choose.” “It cannot be a question of substituting one country for another in the intimacy of Russia. . . There can be for England no association with Russia, if France has no part and lot in it."
“The crux of the whole matter, is, before all, a matter of trust,” as M. de Pressensé pointedly puts it; in the Armenian business “ diplom icy is just strong enough to paralyse philanthropy; philanthropy is just strong enough to paralyse diplomacy." Mr. Gladstone's moral indignation is admirable, but his clamour for separate action, seems to the writer “hot-headed" and " childish," his abuse of the “unfortunate heir of a deplorable system, unjust, unfounded, and un-Christian.”
When we come to conditions for restoring " trust” and joining the duplice, we are confronted by M. de Pressensé with Cyprus and Egypt. Salvation lies along the lines indicated by Mr. Courtney; with French generosity the writer speaks of “the unequalled and incomparable independence of this hero sans peur et sans reproche of true freedom of thought."
This way lies the hope of a renewal of the entente cordiale of former times. This way, too, lies the chance of an agreement with Russia. If England begins to tread the road of conciliation in Africa, the chances are for her following the same impulse in Asia. Thus would be made easy the new triple alliance.
Only England cannot remain as she is. The article is one long “ Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”
Our UNFULFILLED DUTY TO CYPRUS. Against any proposal to abandon Cyprus, Mr. Edward G. Browne plea is hard in the New Review. “England's duty to Cyprus," he argues, “has not been done." We have given her justice and liberty, but we have taxed her far more unmercifully than the Turk. At the same time, largely owing to French and other protective tariffs, the wine trade of Cyprus and her agriculture have suffered a sore depression. We have made few roads and not a single railway, and have arranged no regular steamboat service. And worst of all, over and above the heavy cost of administration, we exact a "tribute" to Turkey of £63,000 a year, which is really paid over to bondholders. Yet the island is fertile enough to pay her way, even under this fearful load.
Mr. Browne goes on to ask to whom are we to make over this land of beauty and wealth and strategic strength ? To the Sultan ? That is out of the question.
i To Greece? The Turks in Cyprus have already avowed
their intention to fight if Greece were to try to take them over. Then to a joint control? This last suggestion Mr. Browne only answers by calling the arrangement, “ that Abomination of Desolation." He urges rather the replacement of the old loan for which the £63,000 are extorted by a new loan at lower interest and with British guarantee; and generally a more generous policy of developing the resources of the island.
MR. WILFRID BLUNT'S PROPOSAL. Mr. Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, in the Nineteenth Century, traces back all the present trouble in the East to the perfidious Anglo-Turkish convention of 1878. He is very severe on Mr. Gladstone and the Liberals for not repudiating this convention on their accession to power, and for actually withdrawing the perambulating consuls whom Lord Salisbury had sent through Asia Minor to promote reform. At Mr. Gladstone's door, too, is laid the heavier charge of having, for the sake of the bondholders, suppressed the native movement for constitutional reform in Egypt and the rest of Turkey, and for having made the reactionary despotism of the Sultan supreme over his subjects. Hence all our sorrows now. English encouragement of Armenian aspirations after autonomy, as distinct from annexation to Russia, alienated Russian help from Armenia and incited them to revolt, which has been quenched in massacre. After this heavy criticism of England's past Eastern policy, Mr. Blunt indicates three lines of possible policy for the immediate future: (1) Go blindly to war with the Sultan for our honour's sake; which we dare not do with Europe at his back; (2) Do nothing; according to the advice of Lord Rosebery, who represents the great English gods of trade and finance, which we probably shall follow; (3) Insist on our Government arranging with the Powers most interested a new European Cougress: and this last project Mr. Blunt earnestly advocates. At that Congress, he demands, England must appear clean-handed, as a suppliant for her Armenian protégés, ready to see the whole Ottoman case treated without reserve, prepared, therefore, to put Egypt and the Soudan with Cyprus and Armenia on the table of the Congress. Our honour being vindicated and confidence restored, Russia might protect the Armenians, and Europe intervene to uphold the Porte against the palace and disband the Sultan's guard.
PUTTING TURKEY IN COMMISSION. Diran Kélékian writes in French, to the same review, on Turkey and its sovereign. He finds the secret of the Sultan's misrule in his desire to oppose the movement among his subjects for Constitutional Government. To counterbalance these liberal forces, he has invoked the deadly powers of Mohammedan bigotry and fanaticism. He has also been guided by Macchiavelli's Prince towards his present disastrous system of personal centralisation of government. Anatolia has long been regarded as the last refuge of Turkey when the Ottomans are driven out of Europe, and their other dominions are snapped up by the Powers; and the Sultan desires to have this last resort complicated with no Armenian claims. The solution of the crisis which the writer advocates is that the Sultan be allowed to reign, but not to govern; and the establishment at Constantinople of a European control or a national representative having, as base, a decentralised constitution on the Austrian principle of nationalities, with European supervision for several years. This to be brought about by the ambassadors of the six
great Powers meeting at the Yildiz Palace and “presenting to the Sultan as to a condemned criminal the decisions of Europe with the threat of an immediate collective rupture."
GENERAL GORDON's Plan. Sir Edmund du Cane communicates to the same review a letter sent him by General Gordon, January 16th, 1881, on the Blue Book on the condition of Asia Minor. The remedy he suggested for Turkish misgovernment was to take the power out of the hands of the Pashas and put it in the hands of the people themselves; certainly not to transfer them to the government of foreign powers. The most important paragraphs in his letter are these :
The Turkish peoples know exactly the full extent of the corruption and rottenness of their government; they know how and in what way any remedy they may enact will act on the country. They are in every way interested, for themselves and their children, in obtaining a good government; whereas to the Turkish Pachas, so long as they can fill their purses it is all they care.
To put the power in the hands of the Turkish peoples is a fair, perfectly just effort on the part of foreign governments; it is merely the supporting of the Sultan's own design when he gave his constitution. Foreign governments who support this liberation of the Turkish people cannot be accused of intriguo or selfishness; they will gain the sympathy of the peoples.
A foreign government is no match for the Sultan and the Pachas: it has not the knowledge necessary to cope with them : it is the Turkish peoples who alone have the power to hold their own, besides which no foreign government has any right to interfere.
By the way foreign governments are now working they ara inevitably drifting, day by day, into still increasing interference with the internal affairs of Turkey, and are helping to band Sultan, Pachas, and peoples against any improvement. Such interference must end in serious complications, and can in no way further the professed object--improved government.
It is urged that the Turkish peoples are not fit for representative government. Well, look at Roumania and Bulgaria, and, in some degree, to Roumelia ; they succeed very fairly. If the peoples never have a chance, they will never be able to show what they can do. Had we waited till our monarchs or our lords hal given us representative assemblies, we would be without them to this day.
What I maintain, therefore, is that our government should unceasingly try, with other governments, to get the Midhat constitution reconstituted; that they should leave that very dubiously just (in fact it may be called iniquitous) policy of forcing unwilling peoples under the yoke of other peoples, which is not only unfair to the coerced and ceded peoples, but is a grave mistake, for by it are laid the seeds of future troubles.
MR. FREDERICK GREENWOOD. Mr. Greenwood contributes his views on the situation to the Cosmopolis in the form of a diatribe against sentiment in politics. He opens it with the picture of “an ideal Europe,” as it might be drawn by pilgrims in Palestine and on the Mount of the Sermon:
An ideal Europe would be one wherein the nations lived side by side in unmenaced freedom and settled content-all of them., great and small, softened to the mood which one or two little States have been drilled into by conditions that subdue ambition without denying prosperity. Aggression on the grander scale having gone the way of cattle-rieving, “ absorption ” as obsolete as piracy, even tariff-wars would be no more. The most hostile contention between one nation and another would be that of craftsmen in the same workshop, merchants in the same port, colleges in the same university.
This was what England hoped the nineteenth century would realize. But it has proved to be a hallucination -" the after-dinner dream of an Imperial Dives.”