ment of the human race is obedient to fixed climatic laws. There are no great men and no great races in the regions where the icy hand of winter is never relaxed; and the law of human progress is arrested in the broad zone where nature never purifies herself by the influence of autumn frosts. COLONIAL GOVERNMENT A FORM OF SERvitude. In the order of events colonial possessions exact a form of servitude on the part of the possessor. England is forced to accept a degree of subordination to her colonies. Consider the long and unwholesome controversy that England has carried on with the United States, while we have argued and pleaded for the protection of the seals of Alaska-animals that, from their human-like appearance, habits and intelligence, excite our admiration and compassion at once-and yet England has subordinated its own opinion of what is right and just to the demands of Canadian poachers on the Pacific coast. Her subordination to Turkey is more exacting and more permanent. The Sultan is the head of the Mohammedan Church, and it is believed that he has the power, as he has the power, to promote rebellion among the Mohammedan subjects of the British Queen. It is not, then, an unreasonable conjecture that Lord Salisbury feared to apply force to Turkey for the protection of the Armenians in the valley of the Euphrates. Thus are the rulers of colonies brought into subjection to the colonies that they rule. The questions to which I invited attention in my opening have now been considered. On these questions and the discussion in which I have indulged, I impose two other questions, namely: Is there any statesman or taxpayer who can approve of the acquisition of the islands named, and upon the certain assurance that one branch or the other of the alternative proposition must be accepted by the country? Or is there a statesman who can name a third proposition, and a proposition different in substance and not in form merely, that he will defend before the country? In the presence of accomplished facts the important question is this:-WHAT OUGHT NOW TO BE DONE? Hawaii is annexed to the United States, and Porto Rico is a possession of the United States. Without hesitation I say give them territorial governments upon the American basis, with the largest opportunity for progress and for statehood in the American Union. Cuba is not a possession of the United States, and our policy in regard to that island should correspond to the declaration of Congress. Cuba has been freed from the dominion of Spain and upon the understanding that the inhabitants of the island are to set up and maintain a republican government. If the United States is bound to Cuba, the obligation hath this extent only-that the inhabitants shall be free from any interference while the work of organization is going on. This obligation can be kept easily, but it will not be accepted and acted upon in good faith by the leaders who have carried on the war against Spain. From the first their ultimate object has been the annexation of the island to the United States. That object they will pursue through many years, and with the tenacity that they have exhibited in the 30 years of contest with Spain. In the contest now before us, the land owners and the political leaders of the insurgents of Cuba, transformed into ardent friends of the United States, will receive the sup port of a large body of the people of the United States, especially in the manufacturing and trading districts of the country. Every attempt to frame a popular government will be resisted, and any government that may be set up will be denounced as a failure. Aside from political considerations there are, however, three large classes of Americans who are interested in adhering to the declaration of Congress. First, the taxpayers, who, in case of the annexation of the island, must supply the deficiency in revenue, say not less than $60,000,000 a year, caused by the loss of duties on sugar and tobacco brought from Cuba to the United States. Second, the mass of American laborers, of every grade and occupation, who will be forced into competition with the millions of underpaid and unclothed workers of the tropics. Third, the owners and workers of land whose interest in the sugar producing industry is to be destroyed. My conclusion, however, must be this: After such a survey of the situation as I have been able to make, and notwithstanding the declaration of Congress, and notwithstanding the many valid objections to the annexation of Cuba, I reach the conclusion that there is much reason to fear that the project for annexation will have become an accomplished fact in the near future. SPANISH ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC SHOULD BE ABANDONED. Even more serious are the questions. that must arise from our possession of Manila bay and the capture of the city of Manila. These acquisitions are, and for the moment only, military lodgments made in time of war, and they cannot be treated as the conquest of the Philippine islands. They constitute standing ground for diplomatic debate, or for further military undertakings. The conquest of the Spanish islands in the Pacific ocean was no part of the purpose of the war, as the purpose was declared by us, and the seizure of those islands may be treated, wisely and properly, as a means of compelling Spain to yield jurisdiction over the island of Cuba, which was the one only avowed object of the Spain has surrendered all jurisdiction over Cuba, and thereon the government of the United States may with propriety, wisdom and justice, surrender its temporary possessions and all jurisdiction in the islands of the East, and that without controversy, or debate, or thought of compensation. war. If we assert a right in those islands on the basis of conquest, then and thenceforward we are, and are to be, parties to questions and controversies, not with Spain and Aguinaldo only, but with many countries that have interests and establishments for business in the islands. Consider one question: By our constitution the duties levied upon foreign products must be uniform throughout the United States. Presumably our system of duties is enforced in Hawaii as it is in the city of New York. The trade between New York and Honolulu is coastwise trade, and duties are not imposed upon American products. Upon the annexation of the Philippines the trade between those islands and other countries will be diminished seriously. Will England, France and Germany be content while we take into our hands the trade of the 10,000,000 inhabitants of the Philippines? My proposi tions are these: First Give to Hawaii and Porto Rico territorial governments and upon a liberal basis. Second Insist upon an independent government for Cuba, and give no encouragement to the project for an nexation. Third Abandon the Spanish islands of the Pacific without controversy, debate or negotiations with anyone. To some, to many, perhaps, the policy that I commend, may seem insignificant when compared with the permanent possession of all the islands on which our flag has been set up. I have not been influenced by the circumstance that our flag has been set up in foreign lands as evidence of temporary possession gained by force and to be held by force. Conquests in war are temporary until jurisdiction is recognized by the losing party. The flag as a symbol of established right, follows legal recognized jurisdiction. There can be no dishonor in the abandonment of the Philippine islands. The sovereignty has never been in us. If it be charged that I am reducing our acquisitions to the minimum quantity, then I admit the justice of the charge. Such has been my purpose. Every acquisition in the tropics is freighted with misfortunes for the country. As we diminish the extent of these acquisitions we lessen the sum or moderate the intensity of our misfortunes. The Final Touchstone as to War. BY HENRY WOOD. While the phenomenon of war is visible and objective, war itself is entirely within the mind of man. The action of armies and navies commonly called war is only war's outward expression. The latter is secondary. When collective passion rises to such a pressure as to find embodiment in fitting instruments, the visible signs are named war. But the term is applied to a symptom rather than to the disease. The real culprit hides himself beneath a great pile of rubbish. While the metaphysical philosophy inculcates only a recognition of the good, war is the dominant recognition of evil. We are now prepared to take what may seem a bold step, and affirm that the greatest harmfulness of war does not consist in its material desolating touch, the bitterness of pain, the tragedy of wounds, the carnage of battle, nor the accompanying harvest of disease. Terrible and revolting as these concomitants appear to us, the monster which overtops them all is the great tidal wave of collective hatred. This is behind all bullets and shells, and all fuses are ignited by its heat. Among the millions of a great nation which is in the throes of strife, not one in a hundred loses life or limb in battle, while the deadly spirit of destructive antagonism rankles in the national heart, to its utmost territorial limits. Consciously or unconsciously, all are immersed in a great psychical sea of hatred, and, aside from actual combatants, the one and absorbing impulse towards the other millions is destruction. The more complete such de. struction the greater the rejoicing. The passion becomes so general and consuming that it might truly be diag. nosed as a sweeping and collective monomania. Any normal and true sanity must include a measure of love and sympathy towards every other human brother, of whatever race or name. Any so called patriotism or religion which limits this outflow to national boundaries is a sham and a deception. A true evolutionary or even humanitarian view shows that nationality is but artificial. The race is nothing less than a solidarity. Hatred is more disintegrating to its subjective possessor than to its assumed objective. Its blight begins at the core. It glories in the destruction of thousands of innocent men when they happen to be on the "other side." From its very nature, enmity dwarfs the soul and stunts every normal and wholesome impulse towards growth in virtue and Godlikeness. The judgment of wholesale brute force is blind, and has no guarantee of justice. Even if war seem to have a righteous excuse, its corrupting character is inherent and indelible. Human brotherhood, love and unity are so deeply engraven as normal in the constitution of man, that a reversal of them is not only abnormal, but positively deadly. The Sermon on the Mount, with its injunction, "Love your Enemies," is so vitally a part of man's life that its violation, so long as it continues, constitutes "the unpardonable sin." The very nature of the case determines it. That peculiar "sin" is not an act, but a condition. "God is Love," and his nature is the economy of the cosmos. Even the "stars in their courses" turn against him who tramples upon universal law. War is often more dangerous to the victorious than the defeated nation. Its flaming sword" turns every way. To violate the basic principles of one's being is to invite subjective penalty, until amid the bitter dregs of an unnecessary and dearly-bought object-lesson one in the last, desperate extremity "comes to himself.” While we will not aver, as some one has vividly depicted, that the invisible forms, or astral bodies, of those who pass out amid the strife of the battle-field continue the destruction in which they are so absorbed - hardly aware of the loss of their cruder shapes - yet what a boundless contrast between such a removal and a transition which is in any degree ideal. What confusion! What darkness! What a psychical obsession by the demon of destruction! But the war system is drawing near to its end. Moral, ethical, and even political differences among nations are soon to be adjusted by ideals of right rather than by brute force. Through the merciful and beneficent progress of spiritual evolution, the countless multitude of souls which in the past has been ushered into the unseen, quivering with convulsive struggles, and fresh from the fields of conflict, is not to be duplicated in the future. The keynote of the great Christian ideal as expressed by the "Heavenly Host" was, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and goodwill towards men." However we may differ regarding the degree of literalism or symbolism involved in the song Celestial, there can be no difference of opinion as to the principle declared, or that it enunciates the rule through which man's highest development is to be worked out. The final touchstone by which every objective institution, system or phenomenon must be judged may be summed up in the question, Is it based upon love and goodwill? These form the allinclusive, human ideal. Whether on this or the next plane of existence, it is the only possible creator of that condition of harmony called heaven. It is progress upward and onward. Every war is an evolutionary turning backward, a bringing of the brute again to the front. All differences of less than an international magnitude have been conventionally provided for, and vengeance, even so-called righteous vengeance, has been outlawed and constituted a crime. When the evolutionary step from the brute to man was taken, a large residuum of the former was brought over. The new veneer, though very apparent, was yet very thin. The working unit was the individual, there was belligerency toward everything beyond. Slowly the limit extended so as to include the family, and step by step, to take in the clan and the tribe, and it has now reached the nation. Here we are still lodged. Patriotism is yet construed to be, regard for those within the national limit, with an inferred and illy concealed jealousy and antagonism towards all outside. Politics, ethics, poetry, fiction and literature with practical unanimity are here encamped. When will they move on? When will all humanity be practically included? So soon as the whole family of man is seen to be an organism. In the past it has seemed to be but a mass of disconnected and even antagonistic elements. The highest good of each was supposed to be included only in itself. But the dawn of the great truth, that HUMANITY is ONE, cannot much longer be postponed. What an utter inversion of all logic to give relatively small crimes repulsive names, while that on the most gigantic scale is counted, not only excusable, but laudably patriotic and even glorious. The rising of the war spirit into overt activity is rarely the result of any deliberate and well-reasoned purpose, but rather of a general cumulative and contagious passion. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount are not only designed for practical use, but are positively scientific. William Penn and his associates put them into actual demonstration. They lived in the midst of ten powerful and barbarous Indian tribes, with no military defence whatever. They were armed, though without visible weapons, and were strong with unseen strength. But as the brute still depends, both for defence and aggression, upon its horns, claws or beak, so men put their trust in armies and navies, giving little heed to the compelling force of moral ideals. Nearly all wars have come, not from a dispute as to any vital principle, but from racial or religious prejudice, personal or party ambition, selfish hunger for territory, or a lawless antagonism falsely labeled patriotism. There are plenty of plausible excuses, but it is mainly through such incidents or weaknesses that passion assumes the character of a tidal wave, and a nation is swept into that wholesale destructive spirit whose outward manifestation is called war. Millions who would scorn to play the bully in any lesser relations will applaud themselves for doing it on an international scale. If at the outset of a conflict there are misgivings or objections among the more thoughtful majority, they are swept away by a loud and aggressive minority, and by a well-known psychological process the movement soon carries all before it. While there has been no ethical change in reality, that which seemed unnecessary and unholy becomes righteous. On the surface every war is undertaken for some justifiable and beneficent purpose. But were it possible to eliminate all the elements of selfishness, personal and collective ambition and military glory, subtly present in multiform combination, what would be left? But as a wholesome optimism shows that good comes out of evil, may not war be justified upon such a principle? It is really a question of how dearly good shall be purchased. So long as men insist upon paying a very high price for what may be had for the asking, war will have a negative utility. There are some things which each generation insists upon learning through bitter experi ence. One advantage in this is that the knowledge gained is very thorough. To drive out a lesser evil by means of the sum of all evils is revolutionary rather than evolutionary; nevertheless the purpose is often accomplished. If "war is hell," it can never be desirable until, in a dire emergency, hell is needed as a medicament. During the prevalence of war the whole psychical atmosphere is surcharged with ideas of destruction. Weapons, armaments, murderous inventions, sieges, charges and conquests are the staple mental pabulum. Every mind is filled with pictures of strife and carnage, and everything not pertaining to war is at a discount. Unless of the warlike variety, literature is flat, fiction dull, art insipid, history lifeless, and science tame. The enginery of war is all important. There is no glory but military glory, and no heroism but that of the sword. The glamor of the pomp and pageantry of war alone is brilliant. The white-winged fleets of commerce are transmuted into gigantic vehicles of death and destruction, The peaceful uprearing of decades is levelled in a day. and the slowly accumulated savings of a nation are squandered with a prodigal rapidity. Human life in all its phases is overshadowed by the dark cloud of wholesale slaughter. The gospel doctrine of non-resistance is unrecognized, and dependence is still centered upon carnal weapons. The future political ideal among nations is federation, but this can come only through a previous federation of heart and soul. We are members of one another, whether in smaller or larger combination. The world is materially tied together in many ways unknown in the past, but goodwill is the strongest and only normal bond. The weal of each is more and more the weal of all. Profoundly viewed, there are no diverse interests." Universal goodwill would usher in a veritable millennium kingdom of heaven upon earth. From an article in the "Journal of Practical Metaphysics." Patriotism. BY MARY A. HALEY. a The What is the meaning of this inspiring word patriotism, of which we hear so much in these troubled times? word itself is found in the Greek, Latin and other languages and relates to something" founded by our fathers," so that country and father were almost synonymous. In some cases they were really so, as in the early Greek history, when a father died the state adopted the child and instead of one father he had a hundred. In later days patriotism is defined as the love of country. All emotions of love or hatred must find expression. What is the best way to express our love of our country? Is it in raising flags from tower, house-top and lib-· erty poles, accompanied by bands of music and speeches from fire-eating orators? Is it to fasten little flags to our dining-tables while we feast on food branded with mottoes of vengeance? Is it to wear the national colors in soiled and crumpled neckties and hair ribbons till the whole world seems "one mingled flood of flame and light?" If our neighbor prefers to keep his property unadorned, are the nation's interests advanced by the act of the patriots who paint his dwelling with the standard colors, and plant his lawn with tissue paper flowers in red, white and blue? This is done by the same patriots who shoot and burn each other every Fourth of July. Do any of these things show love of country? Do they not rather show love of noise and love of display? It reminds one of Johnson's definition of patriotism in the quaint lexicon that contributed more to the general amusément than to the public benefit. He styles patriotism, "The last refuge of a scoundrel." A later writer says that patriotism is only another form of selfishness. This is true, for it is the extension in ever widening circles of the love of self, of family, and of kindred, till we feel that all "Mankind are brothers and the world our home." Let us turn to Bishop Berkeley's definition. "Where the heart is right, there is patriotism." Yes, in the heart, not in banners and fire crackers and fish horns but in the heart. The heart that swells with pride at the country's success in the arts and industries animates the true patriot. Our country may be represented by men unworthy of their high position, and though bound by their acts to carry the burdens they lay upon us and to be partakers in the common glory as in the common ruin, we may be the truest of patriots and yet not stamp with our approval all that the government does. John Bright in England opposing the Crimean War and James Russell Lowell in America opposing the Mexican War are notable examples of men, who were ready to sacrifice life itself, if necessary, for the good of the country, yet dared to differ from the administrators of the government. Patriotism is best shown when each individual in the country does his or her best for the united whole. This royal road is open to all; rich or poor; strong or weak. Whoever develops what is best and noblest in himself and by his example stimulates those around him to lead a better and higher life, is doing something to make the Country grand and heroic. He may receive no honors, and no pensions, and when he dies, no muffled drums may accompany him to his last resting-place; no stately monument at his Country's expense may guard his sacred dust; no flags on Memorial Day may decorate his grave; yet he is as true a patriot as the one to whom all these tributes are paid, for "Where the heart is right, there is patriotism." The Causes of Anarchism in Italy. BY E. T. MONETA. Translated from "La Vita Internazionale." A little more than a year after the assassination of Canovas de Castillo, the president of the Spanish Ministry, by the hand of an Italian, revolutionary anarchy has again given evidence of its existence by killing a gentle and good woman, an empress who had known more of the griefs of the royal station than of its pleasures. And again this time, along with the horror awakened by the assassination and the immense pity felt for the victim, all Italians have had aroused in them a sense of profound mortification, by the knowledge that the assassin is one of our fellow-countrymen. After Fieschi, who with an infernal machine made an attempt on the life of Louis Philippe; after Orsini, who threw bombs in the pathway of Napoleon III. and instead of him, killed and wounded a number of innocent persons; after Caserio, who stabbed President Carnot; after Angiolillo, who took away the life of Canovas, comes also this other wretch and adds a new Italian name to this sad list of regicides and political assassins. What are the causes of this disgraceful distinction which abroad casts so much discredit on the Italian name, and arouses the violence of the common people against Italian workmen at Trieste, in Gorisa, in Dalmatin, at Vienna, at Berlin and in other cities of Germany? The Catholic press, as was to have been expected, sums them all up in one, viz., the weakening of the religious sentiment. The Conservatives find the causes in the propagation and diffusion of too advanced political and social ideas; the Liberals, in the policy of the government, which is always more or less arbitrary, expensive and careless of the real needs of the country, and which through the excessive burdens of taxation has sown misery and discontent in the ranks of the laboring people. The Democrats and the Sociologists find the origin of the evil in the corruption of the parliamentary system, and the Socialists in the whole present social order, which makes competition betwen man and man the basis of existence. We believe that there is some truth in all these charges but that the parties are wrong when they shift from themselves to others the blame for the condition of inferiority in which the country finds itself in point of morality and political character. The causes are many and complex, but wishing here, for the sake of clearness and brevity of reasoning, to sum them up in a single one, we will say that it consists in the want of a high moral sense in the greater part of our statesmen and members of parliament, in whose hands are placed the destinies of the country, the life, the liberty and the substance of the citizens. When, as candidates for election, they solemnly make promises which they know they will never be able to keep; when in the Chamber, they give their votes for bills which they themselves strongly disapprove, in order not to displease the ministry from whom they hope to receive favors; when they impose upon the country protective duties and taxes out of proportion to its economic strength, in order to favor the interests of certain classes of proprietors and certain industries; when they confess that Italy has not a single interest in Africa to defend and yet squander money and sacrifice soldiers in inglorious wars; when one of them, made head of the government, passes from an alliance contracted with the leader of the radicals to bloody repressions and sieges, and after having, with his policy, brought mourning and misery into many families, and shame to the country, finds in parliament a majority which approves his policy and continues it-how can it be expected that a people thus governed will have faith in justice and occupy a high grade in the scale of political morality? How can you hope that men of the lower classes will develop a sentiment of high respect for the human personality, when they do not see it respected in the acts of the parliament and of the government? Liberty cannot be fruitful without a moral basis, and the example of morality always works downward from above. To restore the moral sense to the political classes who direct affairs, to transfuse it into politics and into the public acts of each day, to make it the chief basis of public education, ought to be the desire and purpose of all who wish to see our country seriously advance on the road of progress and merit the respect, the credit and the sympathy which it received from the most civilized peoples in the first years of its political resurrection. Without this, vain will be the hope that revolutionary anarchism may no more secure in Italy those of its partizans who are the most disposed to kill and to be killed. Sumner's More Excellent Way. The Editor's Table of the New England Magazine for October is devoted wholly to a discussion of "Charles Sumner's More Excellent Way," and a vindication of the great statesman's position on "armed peace" against the criticism of President Eliot in his Alumni dinner Speech. The Editor says: "With President Eliot, therefore, we should be slow to believe that we have any long or fundamental controversy. But with his word at Harvard in June, with any reflection upon Sumner's argument in "The True Grandeur of Nations," we do have controversy. We can think of nothing more dangerous or deplorable, especially at this time in America, than encouragement to our educated youth to view that great argument and vision as vicious or fallacious. We believe that in the line of Sumner's thought lies the hope of the world; and we believe that those who think as Sumner thought, should, without recourse to any generalities, to anything remote in time or place, apply that principle firmly and sweepingly to the situation through which the republic has been passing and the situation which confronts us to-day. We have spent $300,000,000 in a war with Spain. We are in the outer circles of the maelstrom of a policy which means larger armies, larger navies, costlier forts and more of them, and all the paraphernalia of the old world militarism which we have prided ourselves on being free from, -with the corresponding burdens of taxation, the devotion to waste and destruction of the immense resources which might otherwise go to development and progress. The man who does not see that we are in the outer circles of this maelstrom is a fool; and the man who, seeing it, has no forebodings is not a student of history. Is this way of spending money, which is now proposed to the republic,-to put Sumner's question directly to ourselves, a wise way? Is it protective, is it constructive, is it good business, is it common sense, does it pave a good road into the future, is it the economical and promising way to secure the results we claim to aim at, will it make us a truer and safer democracy, and will it help the world? Was Sumner right, was Longfellow right, or was he not, in claiming that if half the wealth bestowed on camps, given to maintain MODELS A AND B.-$65.00 armies and navies, were given to re- "If our republic is to be true to itself, if we are to help civilization forward and not backward, then the young men of our universities and all of us who look at war and national defence and national grandeur in the old way have got to be born again,old way have got to be born again, nothing less than that,-baptized with the spirit where with Charles Sumner was baptized, and have our eyes opened to see that his way is the only right or sensible or efficient way, and that now we are wasting our substance and defeating ourselves. The revolution in the point of view is as radical as the difference between Ptolemy and Copernicus; but when we go through it, things fall at once into order, we find ourselves in a rational world with right means for right ends, and our old notions of what is wise and prudent and necessary for the defence and upbuilding and influence of the nation instantly dissolve, stamped all as vicious and fallacious. Our thoughts on what it is that makes a nation strong need, almost all of them, to be turned inside out. Our economies and generosities are all Ptolemaic. We boast of public and private munificences in education and philanthropy. We need to understand that we are yet in the kindergarten of munificence as concerns all positive, constructive and real things. It would sometimes seem as if, were the devil privileged to organize the world so as to thwart struggling men most effectually, wasting their accumulations and cutting forever the margin of civilization, he would choose precisely what he now sees, the dominance of false political ideals and of gross unintelligence as to how men and nations should spend their money." |