as hitherto on political, but on purely military, principles, and in directing attacks on the Boers' weakest rather than on their strongest side.

The Boers, it has often been inconsistently said, in their undevelopment learn nothing and forget nothing. Whatever in the final issue of the war may be their lot, it will, if England wins, assuredly not be an unhappy, though it may be a disappointing, one. It may be relied upon, moreover, that civilization will be the gainer by the conflict, however pitiful may be the present sacrifice and cost, and that the traditional British principle of self-government will be advanced rather than retarded or destroyed. Despite the gloom that at present hangs over Britain, there is much to cheer in the heroic spirit and unanimity that animate all sections of the Empire. Nor should it be forgotten that, however great have been England's losses, there can be little doubt that the Boer casualties, though concealed, are no less appalling. There may be, it is true, small consolation in this; but to it the English have not to charge themselves with responsibility for bringing on the war or the national sin of criminally causing it. Were there need to enforce these words with proof, it can be supplied from hundreds of able and trustworthy sources. One of the latest and most weighty testimonies has just appeared in the well-considered words of Captain A. T. Mahan, of the United States Navy, the thoughtful historian of "The Influence of Sea Power upon History." Writing the other day, in the New York "Independent," on «< The Transvaal and the Philippines, "the learned gentleman denied the absolute right of either Boers or Filipinos to their territories, since that right depends morally upon the use they make, or have made, of their power. Speaking of the conditions on which the Boers have earned or

not earned a right to their Republic, Cap

tain Mahan observes:

"Personally I believe that they have gravely failed and have forfeited the right. I have paid some attention to the matter, and believe the Boer government and administration to be that of a corrupt and oppressive oligarchy. ... Is it possible that there are Americans who, in the face of the records, really believe that in the community of contemporary peoples the Transvaal rather than Great Britain stands for the cause of political liberty and purity of administration ?»

In another letter he says emphatically:

"I avail myself of this opportunity to say that, in my judgment, not only is the cause of Great Britain just, but to have failed to uphold it would have been to fail in national honor.»

This opinion frankly expressed by Captain Mahan, we are aware, is not to any large extent the one accepted by our people; but it is widely endorsed by Americans (many of them intelligent missionaries) who have lived in South Africa and have an intimate knowledge of the Boers and their astute but far from straightforward leaders. These credible witnesses depict the Transvaalers in an aspect far other than that of the simple, unlettered, pastoral people, patriotic and God-fearing, they are popularly represented to be. They speak of them as arrogant, sordid, and unclean; having an innate disregard of truth and fair-dealing; nomadic by nature and habit, and wanting in feeling for man and beast; whose God is the God of the Pentateuch, and with a fanatical belief that they are the favored of Heaven and are given the mission to extrude the English and drive them into the sea.

The picture, though doubtless exaggerated, is however largely endorsed by the writers of many important books issued by those who know "the Transvaal from within," as well as by not a few prominent public men, officers, consuls, and war-correspondents. Nor does the character sketch seem altogether overdrawn when one reads - despite the many honorable exceptions of the Boers' treatment of some British prisoners and the wounded and of their native "indentured apprentices," and especially of the inhumanity repeatedly shown in the course of the war by firing upon the white flag and upon those in charge of ambulances in the field. But it is not upon the type of the simple Boer farmer, many of whom are doubtless worthy and honest, sturdily fighting for their hearths and homes, that

such reflections should be cast; but upon their sly, avaricious, and arrogant leaders,

The charge of inhumanity laid at the door of the Boers is, in face of many acts of kindly feeling towards British prisoners in their hands, and especially in face of their sturdy bravery on the field, an ungracious one to make. That many of them, however, are carried away by the excitements and horrors of the war, which lead them to acts of occasional inhumanity, the cabled announcement to the London "Standard," of the shooting on Christmas day in the Market Square of Harrismith, Orange Free State, of a young Englishman, named John McLachlan, for refusing to fight against his own countrymen, is, if true, unhappy proof.

who have staked the fortunes of the country and its guileless community on the hazard of war, that they may continue to enrich themselves and keep the Republic a close preserve for their own unprogressiveness, while erecting a barrier round it against the advancing tide of progress and civilization without the safeguards of equality and freedom.

On the other side a wholly different picture presents itself — of a people fighting for justice and fair-dealing, and for the unfettered and inalienable rights of freemen. In the Transvaal these rights have harshly and inequitably been denied to the Outlanders the Boer leaders notably being actuated by unworthy race prejudices as well as by sinister motives. It is to right these wrongs that the English are fighting, and to ensure peace and safety for all in the varied communities and widely scattered settlements of the South African Continent. That this, and not aggression, is the aim of imperial Britain, let an English parliamentarian-Mr. Joseph Cowen, the Radical (Opposition) member for Newcastle-on-Tyne - attest. We quote his words from an article by the Right Hon. Earl Grey, on "England and the Transvaal," in the January number of "The North American Review." Says Mr. Cowen:

"We are fighting to prevent men of British blood from being treated as helots on British territory by a sordid oligarchy which British arms saved from extinction and British generosity endowed with autonomy. We want racial equality. The Boers want racial ascendancy. That's the difference. We are at war for the purpose of preventing our brethren in South Africa from being taxed without representation; from being placed under the control of courts whose judges take their orders from a corrupt Executive; from being refused the right to carry arms, while their oppressors flourish theirs with insolent brutality; from being compelled to contribute to schools in which English is treated as a foreign tongue: in short, from being denied the elementary rights of selfgovernment."

Nor are the grievances so new as is popularly supposed for the redress of which the English are now fighting. It has been the Boer ruse to represent these grievances as the result of the Jameson raid, while as a matter of fact they existed and manifested themselves even before the era of the discovery of the gold fields, and therefore antedate British "cupidity" in seeking to appropriate them.

Of this, there is the best and most authoritative evidence to prove. Back, as we have said, of the discovery of gold in the Transvaal, even to the date of England's magnanimous retrocession of the Republic, there existed not only a sullen and malignant hatred of the English, but a mendacious plotting, through the Afrikander Bond, to sow the seeds of sedition throughout South Africa, with the design of overthrowing Britain's power and expelling her flag.* This is convincingly attested by a notable member of the South African Schreiner family - Mr. Theodore Schreiner, brother of the present Afrikander Premier of Cape Colony and of Olive Schreiner (Mrs. Cronwright), author of the idyllic "Story of an African Farm." In a recent letter to "The Cape Times » anent the manifesto issued to the Orange Free State burghers by Mr. F. W. Reitz, formerly President of the Republic, Mr. Theodore Schreiner exposes the plottings we have referred to of the Afrikander Bond, as the work of a propaganda whose purpose was to oust from South Africa the English, whom Reitz scurrilously designated

murderers, robbers, and breakers of treaties." Against this intolerance and the machinations of Krugerism, Mr. Schreiner launched a most indignant protest, and proved beyond question that "not the British Government but the Republics, led by Kruger, Reitz, Steyn, and their co-workers, have been steadily marching on towards the present war and consciously plotting to bring it about."

From what we have said, justice ought to be shown to Britain, and we ought to hear less among our people of the fallacy that the war is one of pure aggression on the part of the British government and people. Still more emphatically in this matter ought public opinion in the United States to be with England, whose people in the medieval Dutch States of South Africa have been the victims of outraged justice and autocratic pretension, and while making for the prosperity of the Transvaal have sought for such liberty as freemen seek among a community that in no English or American sense can be called Republican.

*It has to be borne in mind, however, that the attitude of the Transvaal government has been progressively harsh toward the English-speaking immigrant. In 1881, for instance, the latter could acquire electoral franchise in the Republic after two years' residence; in 1882 the period was extended to five years, and in 1887 to fifteen years! Since the latter date the Outlander has been practically debarred, save on impossible conditions.

The Kentucky The deplorable political sitEmbroilment uation in Kentucky, with its deed of violence in the shooting of Goebel and the clash of authority in the Executive of the State, once more points to the inherent infirmity of the party system of governing, and to the want of restraint and tolerance in men who make a business in this age and country of "running" the political machine. If such disgraceful exhibitions of partisanship and defiance of law and order are to prevail, legislative paralysis must ensue and the useful work of deliberative assemblies must soon come to naught. Obviously nothing can more quickly corrupt the political character of a community, in the main disposed to act honorably and justly, than such acts of intriguing partisan strife as Kentucky has recently witnessed in connection with the disputed election of a Governor of the State. These manifestations of misdirected ambition, which looks upon public office as legitimate booty, to be seized upon in the interest of a party in the State, are unhappily not uncommon in our political history. For this Goebel affair, it is well to remember, is not a sudden revelation of party marauding or nefarious party tactics, though complicated as in many respects it would seem to be by irregular legislation, and by some impeachable acts in the Courts of the State. The remedy for these grave evils is, primarily, not the corrective, on occasion, to be applied by the authority and force of the National Government; but the preliminary return to reason on the part of the community in the disordered and incendiary districts, and by the weight of calm and tolerant discussion by the local leaders of public opinion, earnestly supported by an honest, intelligent, and non-partisan Press. This, in other words, is simply a call for the fair voice of restraint and reason, to be exercised by the saner elements in the community, rather than for the clamor of self-seeking demagogues and unscrupulous party wirepullers, who have their own sinister game to play and whose eyes are directed towards public plunder instead of towards law and order and the public good.

given to the prosecution of the project on which this country has set its heart, to construct, under American auspices, a ship canal which shall connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The treaty, as we write, has not yet been ratified by the Senate; but as it is in its provisions advantageous to this country and modifies, if it does not abrogate, the unsatisfactory clauses of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, there can, we think, be little doubt that it will receive in due course senatorial endorsement. The purport of the diplomatic negotiations with England has been to secure for the United States a free hand in the contemplated construction, by this country alone, of the Nicaragua Canal, and to annul those provisions of the Treaty of 1850 which seemed to impose international restrictions upon the enterprise. These negotiations having resulted in the present Treaty, the project, which is so vital to the commercial as well as to the national interests of this country, with island dependencies now in the two great oceans on either side of the isthmus, is at last in shape to be prosecuted when the Congressional Canal Commission shall have reported, and when our government has consulted with the Central American republics of Nicaragua and Costa Rica and obtained the necessary right of way and other essential concessions and privileges. The agreement, it appears, stipulates that the interoceanic highway shall be politically neutralized, as is the Suez Canal, and when completed shall be open to the shipping of all nations, and even to war vessels, for it is agreed that the Canal " shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised, nor any act of hostility be committed within it." The design is to treat the Canal as an international highway, common to all, vesting in the United States an exclusive unchallenged right to construct and manage such a waterway, without power however, on the part of this country, to fortify or restrict its entrances and approaches, or do aught that may limit access to it, in peace or war, by the world's commerce. The same restrictions are to apply to all other countries, which are to refrain from all acts of seizure, blockade, and control, or from any interference with the common international highway whose ownership and guardiancy are vested in the government of the United States.

The Treaty is manifestly a new de

parture in international diplomacy and the token of a happier and better order of things. Insensate Imperialism may possibly demur to its broad provisions, suggested by amity and good will, in the common interests of all commerce-carrying nations. But the better way has been shown in the regulations that govern the Suez Canal and its neutralization, which open its waters on a footing of equality to the traffic of all nations; and if the United States is to build or cause to be built any connecting oceanic link across the territory of the two independent republics of Central America in the interests of her own shipping, wisdom besides the logic of events suggests that that link shall be neutralized and be common to the uses of all. Only thus, it would seem, could this country amicably annul the restrictions of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and arrange matters with Great Britain so as to facilitate work on the canal, while practically maintaining the rights and safeguards of the Monroe doctrine. That in the negotiations there has been no covert abandonment of American interests, as some irrationally fear, we are assured; and though if we construct the canal we shall not have any exclusive control over it, we shall have the management and the policing of it, and in the case of war are now in a position, with our island dependencies on both sides of the isthmus, to cope with any enemy that may attempt to try its strength with us and seek to take an undue advantage of the neutralized isthmian channel of interoceanic traffic.

The British

Parliament and the War

Those of our readers who have followed closely the course of Britain's war with the Boers, with, it may be, some qualms of doubt as to the side on which right and justice lay, would be interested in the discussions in the British Parliament on either side of the burning topic. Especially would they be likely to note whether or not the Government has been sustained in its resort to and prosecution of the war. Party in the House, as in the country, was, we know, divided on the question, the differences threatening, it was at one time feared, to overthrow the Salisbury Government. The struggle between parties was sensibly modified, however, by the national attitude of the notable leaders of the Opposition, and by their patriotic disclaimer of

any wish to embarrass the Government while it was engaged in the serious and responsible duty of conducting a war in defence of the Empire. The result showed the wisdom as well as the policy of this course, for though the Administration, when arraigned by the Opposition, made an indifferent defence, if we except the able speech of the Under-Secretary for War, it was sustained by the unusually large vote of 352 for the Government, against 139 who voted for censure, in the amendment to the speech from the throne. The endorsement of the Government voices the higher politics and shows how profoundly the nation feels the stress of the South African situation, and how determinedly it has set its face to pursue the conflict, wrest Natal from the invader. and reassert British supremacy. In England the hour is still, however, one of anxiety and suspense, despite the fact that over 200,000 British and Colonial troops are now in South Africa, and that the Empire is at one in the resolute purpose, and at whatever hazard, to fight the issue to the end. The unity of interest in this matter, and the solidarity of the Empire where its integrity has been threatened, form one of the most remarkable circumstances in the history of the British people. The inference from this is to us obvious, in attesting the right and justice of the British cause, however deep may be one's sympathy for the Boers as a people, who have been led by their arrogant and designing leaders into a causeless and criminal war. The moral signficance of the union of all parts of the Empire in support of the war was the other day thoughtfully referred to in one of the religious weeklies — " The Congregationalist" of Boston, Mass. In an article, in the issue of Feb. 1, on "The Strength of the British Empire," the writer observes:

"Whether our sympathies are with Boers or British, we cannot ignore this great fact (the oneness in aim and interest of the colonies and the motherland in support of the war). We say nothing about the offers by native princes of India to furnish troops and money for England. We realize the perils as well as the immense responsibilities of the Government from the vast extent of its dependencies composed so largely of uncivilized and restless tribes. But here are millions of Australasians and Canadians born in the lands where they live, as enlightened as we Americans are, offering freely of their lives and treasure to maintain the supremacy of Great Britain in South Africa. The press

in these countries is free. The people criticise the mistakes of the government as frankly as those living in the homeland. They expect no bribes from millionaires of the Rand or offices from Mr. Chamberlain or his friends. Whatever they may think of these men, plainly they do not believe that the British policy in the Transvaal is selfish or unjust. If these great,

intelligent, English-speaking peoples believed that the home government had been inveigled into war by unscrupulous men for purposes of greed and aggression, would they support that government?»

Nor is the vote in the Parliament at Westminster, the practical unanimity of the British Press, or the utterances of opposition leaders like Lord Rosebery, Mr. Asquith, Sir Henry Fowler, and even Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Edward Grey, and men of like influence and of high moral standing, without force in attesting the righteousness of the war and the unwillingness of Party to make the task of vigorously conducting it harder for the Government. The attitude of these men and the united voice of the Empire it is proper to say, however, do not endorse the Adminstration in all things. There have been dealt out to it sharp criticism of its shortcomings, chiefly in its unpreparedness for the war, as well as arraignment for its share of responsibility in not doing more than it did to avert it. But this is modified by the well-vouchedfor fact that President Kruger had long designed to bring the conflict on and is himself solely responsible for finally launching it. Whatever are its issues, this, in the British mind, is the justification for the war, not only as an act of selfdefence and in the paramountcy of the Empire, but in the broader and higher interests of justice, equality, and freedom.

sion

*

The Philippine As we go to press, we learn Civil Commis- that the first instalment of the Report of the Philippine Commission, of which President Schurman of Cornell was the head, has been presented to President McKinley. In it the Commission is understood to discuss the various modes of government designed for the Islands, rejecting the sort of government suited to a confederation, as well as the model which England makes use of for the administration of a Crown Colony. For obvious reasons the governing apparatus suited to the status of a protectorate is also held to be unsuitable, while the Commission finds the requisite

machinery of civil administration in the type of territorial government with which our people are already familiar, though with a larger measure of home rule in local affairs than Jefferson approved of for the The early administration of Louisiana. Commission gives emphatic support to the notion that the United States should permanently retain and govern the Philippines. Acting upon the Commission's proposals, President McKinley is now seeking for good available men to compose the new Civil Commission, which is to replace the present military régime. It is understood that Judge W. H. Taft, of Cincinnati, has accepted the civil governorship of the Islands.

Death of

Mr. Ruskin

The announcement of the death (Jan. 20) of John Ruskin, the "High-Priest of the Beautiful,» brought with it no acute sense of personal loss, owing to the fact that the work of the great art critic and brilliant writer of English prose had many years ago ended, and that not many, comparatively speaking, of the present generation had felt the magic of his incomparable literary style. Mr. Ruskin, who was in his eighty-first year, died at his home at Brantwood, Coniston, in the English lake-country. The loss which his death creates, though as we have said not acute, is nevertheless real, since few men of his time have exercised a more remarkable influence in the sphere of art or have by their genius and fervor done more than he to call men's minds to the inner beauties and deeper meanings of natural phenomena and to the ethical aspects of things æsthetic. Among laymen his power as a moral teacher has been great, for in all his labors and aims Mr. Ruskin set before himself a high, if somewhat quixotic, ideal of life, and with great earnestness did much not only for the elevation of his humbler fellowmen, but for the development among all classes of sound artistic taste and the enriching and spiritualizing of their daily life. His insight was great, though his enthusiasm led him frequently into extravagances and to assumptions in regard to art, from which other and competent critics emphatically dissented. This habit of exaggeration is especially true of him when he left the domain of art, into which youthful enthusiasm first led him, for that of social philosophy and economics. Ruskin's excursions into the latter fields and the strange