The readiness with which the German Government accepted the demand of the Allies for the renewed control of German armaments, though it evoked occasional skepticism in France, decidedly improved the attitude of even the Jingo Paris press. Le Figaro, with its Radical traditions, may hardly belong to this class in spite of its ardent championship of Poincaré. of Poincaré. Raymond Recouly thus reviews the German armaments situation in its columns on the authority of a French= man who has held a high post in Germany for several years:

Germany is by no means in a position to fight us, even on the defensive. A great majority of her people do not want to fight or to talk of fighting. A fraction of hotheaded Nationalists and chauvinists would like nothing better than to fly at France at the first opportunity, but it is a negligible fraction compared with the nation at large. Nothing pleases these Nationalists more, or serves their propaganda better than the excessive and puerile fear exhibited by some Frenchmen who go about everywhere declaring that there will be a war in six months or a year. That sort of talk tickles the pride of Teuton Nationalists immensely. > They argue that if the French are so disturbed by such a possibility it is because they are conscious of their weakness.

Recouly thinks, however, that France will stay upon the Rhine for a long time, whatever Government is in power at Paris. 'But while exercising the greatest vigilance, we should be careful to keep cool.'

Le Temps expresses the gist of its opinion as follows:

Reactionary associations, whether athletic or political, are not really dangerous except for the Republican Government in Germany. But the day they succeed in overthrowing that Government, we shall see a Government in power that is likely to become very soon a threat to European peace. Under these circumstances it is good statesmanship obstare principiis, to

stamp out the first sparks of a possible conflagration.

AFRICAN PROTESTS

THE Democrat, a paper published by an Indian at Nairobi, Kenya Colony, East Africa, thus fulminates against Christianity—at least as it conceives that religion to be practiced in Africa:

For hundreds of years men resorted to the Christian religion, and used it to deceive the other portion of the world, and the rest of mankind. It is the subterfuge of the white man when he wants to deceive you; he tells you about Jesus, he tells you about Heaven, he speaks of the beautiful things of the Christian religion, which he

himself does not believe in, and does not practice. He preaches them to you because he believes it is the easiest way to reach your emotion and to appeal to your sentiment, and deprive you of that which he wants. Such a subterfuge the white man has used in Africa, such a subterfuge the white man has endeavoured to use on all the unfortunate peoples of the world. He sends out his priest, his Bishop, and his missionary to foreign lands to pave the way native peoples and their lands. for colonial dominion or exploitation of the

The Abantu Batho, a South-African paper edited and published by native Africans, thus voices the same spirit of protest:

Rome, mistress of the world, ruled supreme, her eagle carried by her welldisciplined and victorious legions; and so remarkable was that peaceful condition that the Romans erected a temple and upon its portals were inscribed in letters of gold the words: 'The temple of Eternal Peace'. Nineteen hundred years have passed, and that temple is now buried among the ruins of ancient Rome, and other temples have been erected for the purpose of preaching peace, the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. Yet there is no peace. The peace which we are now enjoying may be likened to the calm before the storm; the nations of the world are only taking a

breathing space before they once more come to grips in a deadlier and more destructive war. With such a conception of peace, the strong and rich oppressing the weak and the poor, with the canker of racial prejudice eating at its very vitals, how can the white man expect peace in the true sense of the term? Who can think that he can come to my house, put me out, take all I posses, and then talk to me about peace and justice, and after robbing and knocking me down, talk to me about a League of Nations for peace? All the burglars get together, after robbing the black man of his land, and then say 'Let us have peace.' There is not going to

of whom between ninety and ninetyfive per cent are of German blood, on the basis of a hasty traveler's impres sion.' He concludes by assuring the readers of Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung that 'the Alsatians are not lost to you so long as you do not lose yourselves.

We are Alsatians and shall remain Germans at heart. Once before we preserved our German character for almost two hundred years under French rule. We shall do so again.'

THE Upper House of the Norwegian Parliament recently voted by a ma

of all men.

MINOR NOTES

AN 'Old Strassburger' writes to Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung from Alsace protesting against Otto Grautoff's description of the friendly sentiment cherished there toward France, quoted in the Living Age of July 26. He accuses Grautoff of 'incredible ignorance' and 'abysmal incomprehension,' and deplores the presumption of a man who 'ventures to describe the sentiments of a nation of nearly two million people,

Christiania, Oslo. The town of Oslo, now a suburb of the city, was founded in 1050, and was long the capital of the country. It was burned in the seventeenth century, and the new town was rechristened in 1624, from Christian IV, King of Denmark and Norway. The Lower House will doubtless confirm the action of the Upper Chamber, which was dictated by a wave of nationalist feeling, aroused partly by the controversy with Denmark over Greenland already alluded to in these columns.

THE 'White Australia' policy is the formula which the Australian people have framed as the only solution of a number of very complex problems which affect their security and welfare. These problems are of great difficulty. If each were isolated and taken on its own merits, a series of different conclusions might be arrived at, but, where questions affecting the integrity of the Commonwealth are involved, a people has to reconcile these differences and formulate a policy which will lead to the preservation of the fundamental basis of its life. The only way to determine the validity of the White Australia policy is to examine these points one by one and see what solution of the whole complex of problems is possible.

It is not necessary in this post-war age to emphasize the danger of racial conflict. It seems impossible for two different races to live together happily on the same territory and under the same sovereign. Nationality is the obstinate fact of twentieth-century international politics. Its problems cannot be altogether settled by reason. In the peace treaty a sincere attempt was made to redraw the map of Europe according to the principles of nationality. Where a homogeneous people is collected on one area under one sovereign set of institutions there is stability and order. But unfortunately in too many areas this consummation cannot be achieved: : a clear cut cannot be made; and, mainly for this reason, Europe to

day is a seething caldron of conflicting national claims. It is not the backward races only which are afflicted in this way. The two most gifted races in Europe - Anglo-Saxon and Celt cannot live together in Ireland; and to end conflict a solution has to be adopted which maims Ireland and penalizes all.

The case for obviating similar struggles in the newly settled countries is irresistible. There are, however, certain mitigating factors in the settlement of new territories. European nations are so closely akin that with intermarriage coalescence is only the matter of a couple of generations. If a country is well settled by one vigorous race; if the problem of sovereignty is securely decided; if the language is decisively chosen; if the culture is one which can be shared by all, there is no need to apprehend trouble in a new country from the admixture of Europeans. The immigrant accepts the culture of the new land with pride. He learns its language and looks upon it as his home. But there are limits to the absorptive power of the settled race. The history of the United States shows that where the immigration is too rapid the aliens form enclaves and give all sorts of trouble. The absorptive faculty varies in the geometrical ratio. In a small country, where the original settlers are scanty, a large immigration might easily put the dominant culture in doubt. It might easily raise the question of the allegiance of

the people to its old sovereign and institutions. And when the culture of race is threatened the racial conflict commences. The United States was so populous when the great stream of immigration started that no effective challenge could be made. But this does not apply to a small population like that of Australia, where an immigration of one million Italians or Germans might at once give rise to racial conflict.

Quite other considerations apply to the immigration of non-European races. Non-European immigration is of two kinds. One is of races who have had no experience of civilized institutions the Negro and the South Sea Islander. The other is of races who have old cultures which vary widely and essentially from European culture. In the first you get striking differences of color which indelibly discriminate the alien. You get an inability to live up to the forms and the institutions of the white race. You get two entirely different conceptions of sex problems and an ineradicable instinct against intermarriage, which renders absorption impossible. Mixed marriage becomes an act of treachery, and the progeny of the marriage are penalized. Economically the colored races become pawns, depressing the standard of life and removing the white race from a healthy contact with manual labor. No system of indentured labor has ever been satisfactory. Recruitment has given rise to all sorts of scandals; the life of the indentured laborer has been unnatural. It was never more than veiled slavery. Nowhere was indentured labor more closely guarded than in Australia; but the death-rate among the South Sea Islanders was always greatly in excess of the whites', even in tropical parts. The return of the indentured worker to his home gave rise to scandals worse than the recruiting.

The case of older civilizations, like the Hindu, Chinese, or Japanese, is like the racial problem in Europe, only more intense. Here you have an old, honorable civilization, a noble culture very tenaciously held, but a low economic ideal. You have the conflict of color and language, but a tenacity of purpose a racial pride and an intellectual capacity which are absent from the inferior races. In races like the Japanese you have a patriotism which is more intense than our own, which will never accept alien culture or sovereignty.

Lastly, we must recognize that under democracy the chances of racial conflict are intensified, not mitigated. This paradoxical result is due to the fact that democracy is only possible where there is a foundation of mutual trust and confidence. The method of democracy is progress through struggle. There is a constant conflict of ideas and objectives which is not dangerous only because, underlying these difficulties, there is a strong unity of race, institutions, language, and history. We permit the utmost latitude in our Parliamentary struggles, because we know that all are interested in the integrity and value of the State. But if this interest is not shown by all, if there is a large section anxious to install another set of ideas and institutions, the free and tolerant basis of democratic institutions becomes a danger. The very freedom can be used as an instrument to destroy the old culture. And so racial conflict develops almost automatically. The older race feels that its language, its institutions are priceless privileges. They are the condition of its political efficiency. A minority which cannot understand the language and the institutions in which the State is governed cannot be said to enjoy self-government. If it strives for government in its own

language, it threatens the culture of the other race.

Here is an irreconcilable problem. The dominant race will discriminate against and hold back the minority for fear of the threat to its position. In the struggle all the reality of democracy will be lost. In America, where there is a difficult racial problem, racial hatred is intense. In Austrialia, where the only colored aliens are visitors, there is no racial feeling. The remnant of the old Chinese who were originally hunted down in racial riots are really popular. Japanese scientists and sailors lately had receptions which surprised them by their cordiality. That cordiality would be changed to hatred if the Japanese were settling here and challenging our hold on this continent. Racial conflict is a fact which cannot be ignored. It is not based on depravity, but is the result of national and often virtuous characteristics on both sides. Any wise planning of world settlement would avoid it.

Even if the conclusion of the preceding section of this article be admitted, it by no means follows that the present occupants have a moral right to monopolize the whole of a very large territory. It may be that the result of the argument as to racial conflict will lead to the conclusion that the handful should move and allow a race which can effectively occupy the continent to do so. Such an argument has, however, never been accepted in history. Nations have been displaced by others, but this has been done by the arbitrament of force, and not by any appeal to justice. In the present case, however, we are trying to justify the White Australia policy on ethical grounds, and this aspect of the question must be considered.

The colonization and settlement of Australia are entirely and solely due to

the pioneering genius of the British race. Australia is not a land which could have been quickly occupied by a large population who could have immediately established themselves there. If it were it would have been filled up many centuries ago. It is only

short distance from the most crowded territories of the East, and across a narrow strait from territories filled with millions of islanders. But Australia was severely neglected until the British came. It was occupied by a primitive people who could not find in the resources of the land anything which could assist them to progress out of the most elementary stage of human life. Australia is now a prosperous country, and produces more wealth per head of population than any country in the world. But when the old navigators touched its shores they found it a most unattractive place. It was only when the east coast was discovered that it was thought of as a place for settlement. The narrow strip of land between the mountains and the coast and a couple of hundred miles inside it are well watered and attractive. The southeast corner, including the Murray Valley and the rest of Victoria, an area of not more than 250,000 square miles, is the only part of the continent which can compare with Europe so far as climatic conditions are concerned.

It is obvious, therefore, that the settlement of Australia could not have been achieved by a primitive race or by typical Asiatic races like the Hindu or the Japanese or the Chinese. These races, used to a low standard of life and without any far-reaching economic organization, could not have solved the difficult problems that had to be solved before successful settlement could be effected. As it was, many of the early British settlements long led a precarious existence. Botany Bay was