annexation, have since been made in the House, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee taking part in the discussion. These preliminary speeches indicate that the House is so divided on the subject that the resolution will have to run the gantlet of a long debate. It will have to go over till the next session of Congress, and that will mean doubtless its final burial. It ought to mean that. The first part of Chairman Davis' resolution is as follows:

"The government of the republic of Hawaii having in due form signified its consent in the manner provided for by its constitution to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and to the Hawaiian islands, and to their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, forts, harbors, military equipment and all other public property of whatever kind and description belonging to the government of the Hawaiian islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining; therefore, be it

"Resolved, that said cession is accepted, ratified and confirmed, and that said Hawaiian islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States, and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular, the property and rights herein before mentioned are vested in the United States of America."

The remaining parts of the resolution provide for the disposal of the Hawaiian public lands, for the temporary government of the islands until Congress decides upon a permanent form of government, the abrogation of Hawaiian treaties and the preservation of Hawaiian customs regulations until those of the United States shall be put into operation, the assumption of the public debt of Hawaii by the United States to the extent of $4,000,000, the regulation of Chinese immigration and the appointment by the President of five commissioners to prepare a code of laws for the government of the islands.

Here are some sentences from an article on "Patriot. ism" in the March number of the North American Review, by Bishop Doane of Albany, that pack whole volumes of meaning into them: "Is not the love of man, philanthrophy, consistent with the love of country, patriotism? Must the preference be exclusive?" "My contention is that the one is larger than the other, that the one is above the other, that the one is before the other, that the one is the foundation of the other; that the patriot is first philanthropist; that in the great brotherhood of humanity all are brothers, only those are nearest who are in the same house." "If nations are masses of individuals, governed and controlled by the same great moral principles, it must be that national selfishness is a sin." "The true patriot is, first of all, a man, one of the great brotherhood of humanity, knit in, in the mere matter of self-interest, with the human race." "The hatred of other countries is, not only not the only sign, but it is no sign at all, of the love of our own."

"Of all so-called patriotic hatreds the attempt to foster American hatred of England is the most unpardonable and the most unnatural." "While true patriotism does not consist in and does not consist with contempt and dislike for other countries, it does not consist in boastful blindness about the faults of our country and our government." "It is not courage but cowardice that makes a blustering braggart of an individual, and this is just the element that marks the jingo in national feeling." "All antagonisms of citizen against citizen, sectional, local or of different classes and conditions, are unpatriotic because they hurt the country." "Wisest and best of all the marks of a true patriot is the possession and the practice of an intelligent interest in the public affairs of his country." "The noblest strife among the nations of the world is to be rich in the arts and achievements of spiritual and intellectual power, strong in the might of justice and purity and honor, and great in the magnificent and magnanimous qualities, moral and civic, of Christian manhood. The cultivation of true patriotism will find its finest exercise of legitimate competition along such lines as these."

Four more idiots have been trying to save their honor in Europe by fighting duels. We say idiots, because any man who consents to fight a duel is, from the standpoint of right and justice, a moral idiot, no matter what the weight of his brains or the depth and complexity of their convolutions. The duel is under the ban of the law both

in France and Italy, but those who wish to fight duels find little difficulty in doing so. Public opposition to the duel is so weak that it has little restraining influence. The

people in both these countries are so fond of the excitement afforded by the duel that they are perfectly willing, many of them glad, to see the law trampled under foot and despised rather than forego a little temporary exhilaration of the nerves. It is a curious kind of lawlessness, not as violent and loathsome as lynching in this country, but having even less excuse for its existence. It is not only wicked, but in the highest degree stupid and idiotic. If the French authorities would arrest both Colonel Picquart and Colonel Henry, fine them heavily and imprison them both for a year at hard labor, and then follow up all other duellists in the same way, it would not be five years before challenges would be unknown in France. In Italy, it would not be possible to follow this course with one of the recent duellists. He was killed in the encounter, and has gone to stand before that tribunal where he shall be judged for all the thirtytwo duels which he had fought, and where no false public sentiment will make the trial a farce. The other Italian, who killed him, should be condemned for murder and imprisoned for life. These two Italian duellists, Signor Cavallotti and Signor Macola were both prominent mem

bers of the national parliament and editors of influential papers. Their duel grew out of a newspaper war. Though political opponents, they were personal friends. Their seconds tried to avoid a fight, but the tyranny of public sentiment forced them on, and they had not sufficient moral courage to resist it. The duel of Colonel Picquart and Colonel Henry grew out of the Zola trial. One of the "gentlemen" called the other a liar, and they appealed to the point of the sword to decide! What did this "trial" decide? Simply that both men were consummate fools.

The list of peace societies published on the first of March by the International Peace Bureau shows that there are now, including branch Societies, four hundred and twenty-two associations. Denmark leads with ninety-four groups, Sweden comes next with seventynine, Germany has seventy-two, Great Britain has fortysix, Norway thirty-eight, Switzerland twenty-six, France sixteen, Italy thirteen, Austria nine, Holland nine, HunIn gary two, Belgium, Portugal and Russia each one. the United States there are fifteen societies, the Universal Peace Union having a number of branches besides. The number of societies is rapidly increasing in European countries. No great movement has ever had a larger number of associations organized and combined in its support. Some of the groups are, of course, small, but they are all composed of earnest, influential people. Their power for good is not to be estimated, by any In combination they represent a means, by their size. force which is every year increasing and whose momentum is soon to become irresistible.

In an editorial entitled "The Road to Ruin," the March number of Concord (London), commenting on Lord Salisbury's warning that a continuance of territorial expansion means breakdown for England, says: “So far it has only involved a rapid increase of military and naval expenditure, the diversion of more and more strength and skill from productive industry into destructive adventure, the impoverishment of subject races, and at home a general reaction along the whole line of social reform. The next step will be conscription; after that, if we are still impenitent, will follow some great Imperial disaster, and then the debacle." Speaking of Mr. Chamberlain, Concord says; "Sir William Harcourt did the Colonial Secretary no injustice when he spoke of him as loving to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm.' He positively revels in those interesting situations' which are the terror of the quiet, industrious citizen. He is the Napoleon of the commercial field, the great maker of history as history was understood by the man who said that the State is blessed which has none." "The truth is we are face to face with a new type of politician, one

for whom peace and arbitration are mere idleness, and only an ever-extending frontier offers the opportunity which his greed of power and his delight in international wrangling demand." Concord then arraigns with great severity the party to whom has descended the tradition of Cobden and Bright and Gladstone" for its "weakness in this emergency." "Only ninety-six Liberal and Nationalist members were found to go into the lobby against the infamous injustice, the crowning meanness of the Indian Government, the decision to charge the whole cost of the Afridi campaign on the Indian Exchequer. When the Mother of Parliaments' has become so degraded as to sanction a crime like this, who can wonder that anarchism is propagated and autocracy flourishes? We have hardly the heart to go on to complain of the tame, silent reception of the new Army Scheme by those who should have been planning a stubborn opposition."

The American Peace Society lost by death during the month of March two prominent and very valuable members, Rev. L. H. Angier, D.D., of Boston, and Rev. J. H. Allen, D.D., of Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Angier, who was eighty-nine years old at the time of his death. attended the annual meeting of the Society last May and was well and very vigorous for one of his age. He kept up to the last his profound interest in the cause of international peace, which had enlisted his sympathies more than sixty years ago when William Ladd, the founder of the Society, was still living and devoting his great abilities and his splendid energies to the cause. He was full of reminiscences of the past with its brave struggles and heroic endeavors, but he kept fully abreast of the present time and was as hopeful and optimistic as a young man of twenty-five. We can never forget the fine fire in his eyes and the splendid ring of his magnificent voice when he spoke of justice, liberty and peace, and urged us all to keep up with the times, with the movement of God's Spirit in the progress of Christian civilization. Dr. Angier was a Presbyterian clergyman, and a prominent figure in his denomination. He was elected a member of the Board of Directors of the American Peace Society in 1865, and continued to serve in that capacity for twentyseven years, until 1892, when he was made a vice-president and remained so until the time of his death.

Dr. Allen, who died two days before Dr. Angier, in his seventy-eighth year, was a prominent Unitarian. He entered Harvard at the age of sixteen, graduating in 1840. During his subsequent long life, he filled many important positions. He was for a number of years teacher, then pastor, lecturer on ecclesiastical history in Harvard University, and editor of the Unitarian Review until it was discontinued. He was one of the authors of the Allen and Greenough series of Latin text-books. One of the more recent services which he performed was the

writing of the History of Unitarianism for the American Church History Series. Dr. Allen was chosen one of the Directors of the American Peace Society in 1891, and remained such until the time of his death. He attended regularly the meetings of the Board and took a profound interest in all the great international questions of the day, especially that of arbitration as the only rational means of settling disputes. He attended the meeting of the Board in January, but was unable to take much part in its discussions, owing to sudden illness which had come upon him. Both Dr. Allen and Dr. Angier were the kind of men out of which the best civilization is builded.

Brevities.

There ought to be a law for the punishment, and even the suppression, of a newspaper that will incite to war. -Harpers Weekly.

Maurice Yokaï, the celebrated Hungarian statesman and novelist, now in his seventy-third year, is president of the Hungarian Peace Society.

.. Above all, it seems to me that American chivalry demands that we exercise our finest and nicest sense of honor and dignity, and impute nothing evil to the government of Spain, unless the most incontrovertible facts demonstrate such a necessity.-Ex-Senator Edmunds.

. . There is no "I" in the Lord's Prayer; it is all "we"; it is all the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.-Frances E. Willard.

Edmond Potonié-Pierre, of Fontenay-sous-Bois, France, continues to put forth his Petits Plaidoyers contre la Guerre. He has sent out at different times, within a few years, about forty editions of these "flying sheets." It is a unique and very useful method of propaganda.

Mr. L. H. Pillsbury of Derry, N. H., long a member and officer of the American Peace Society, has been busy with his pen during the recent exciting days. He has, through the Derry News, given his fellow townsmen something of just the right nature to steady their nerves. ... Mr. D. R. Goudie of Chicago, who has just begun the publication of a new peace paper, The Pen or Sword? has also organized a peace association in Chicago to be called "The International Peace Association." The headquarters of the Association is at 686 Madison St. ... Three parties in Germany have made international arbitration a part of their program. These are the Democratic Party, the Social Democrats and the Bavarian Peasants' Union.

Franz Wirth, the late President of the Frankfurt Peace Society, left a legacy of ten thousand marks to the Society.

... Pastor Otto Umfrid of Stuttgart, Germany, continues to give addresses in his own and other German cities. Some of his audiences number a thousand people, so great is the interest in the cause of peace.

Mr. John W. Penny of Mechanic Falls, Maine, recently read a paper on the Life of William Ladd before the Maine Historical Society. At the same time he pre

sented to the Society an oil painting of William Ladd's home at Minot, Maine. This painting had been carefully prepared, with the aid of persons still living, to represent the home as it was in William Ladd's days, sixty years ago. The American Peace Society hopes to secure a copy of the picture.

The Berne Peace Bureau has published in a pamphlet of 32 pages all the resolutions passed by the eight peace congresses already held. The resolutions are classified according to subjects, and printed in French, German, and English. Mr. Ducommun, the Secretary of the Bureau, has also prepared a Key to go with the pamphlet, giving in a condensed form the substance of the resolutions.

At the laying of the foundation stone of the new pier at Cannes on the tenth ult., the Prince of Wales, who laid the stone, expressed his sincere hope that France might continue to enjoy the benefits of her present government, and that cordial relations between France and Great Britain might continue, for the good of humanity..

Señor Don Luis Polo y Bernabe, the new Spanish Minister, arrived in Washington on the 10th of March. He denied that he had come to Washington with a special mission. He said he hoped through sincerity and goodwill to gain the approbation of the President and the people of the United States. Señor Bernabe speaks English well, having lived at one time in Washington when his father was Minister to this country.

. . The London Echo says it is well known in Court circles that Queen Victoria has declared that she will never sign another declaration of war.

. . . The Navy League in England has offered literature for use in the senior classes of elementary schools. Thirtyseven schools have already been supplied. That is a part of the program for navalizing the nation.

"Utopia is usually the truth seen a little way off," says the Princess Wiszniewska, president of the Women's International Disarmament League.

. . . In a speech at Cannes on the 22d ult., the Prince of Wales said he trusted the relations between France and England would be more and more friendly. Referring to international relations in general he said that we shall not need navies and armies much longer but that we shall have universal peace. The speech was greeted with great applause.

. . The two new battleships, the Kearsarge and the Kentucky were launched at Newport News on the 24th of March. They have each a displacement of 11,525

tons.

Do We Want War?

A SOBER SECOND THOUGHT.
BY HENRY WOOD.

Under civilized conditions war has no place. A resort to brute force, whether between individuals, communities or nations, never can right a wrong. Except for the purest self-defence it is essentially a crime, and no sophistical gloss can make it otherwise. Disguise it as we may, it is simply mutual murder on a colossal scale.

It is a fundamental and admitted principle that he who incites a crime morally shares in its guilt. To stimulate the same through monumental lying doubly deepens the outrage. The sensationalist who persistently tries to light the flames of war between two great nations (and more than two might be involved) in order to sell a few more papers is as truly an incendiary as the fanatic who blew up the Maine, provided she were not accidentally destroyed.

The degradation of the yellow journalism of the period is a burning disgrace upon the American national character, for the press of no other people on earth has ever wallowed in such a mire. We talk of national honor. Dishonor is only possible from within.

There have been in Cuba those things which are always a part of a war; cruelty, death, suffering and destruction. Are these to be righted by multiplying them a hundred fold? Weyler was brutal; therefore we will retaliate by slaying ten times as many as he did! To the million and a balf of involved Cubans, we will add seventy millions of Americans who are now enjoying the fruits of peace and prosperity. How logical! The sensational press seems to contemplate the probable loss of a hundred thousand valuable lives with a levity of spirit with which it would contemplate a holiday celebration.

The logic of war is so abnormal that it may truly be classed as a contagious and collective insanity. Reason is suspended and passion rules. The arch enemy of mankind, of Christianity, of the home, of virtue and of industry is enthroned, decorated and clothed in a robe of patriotism. A great social structure of national life, happiness, goodwill and civil and religious prosperity, reared with infinite pains, is to be honeycombed and shaken by a tornado of prejudice and passion.

We are rightfully shocked at bull fights, disgusted with pugilism, worried over a dog fight, indignant at vivisection and pained at cruelty to animals, but roll these all together and multiply them by a million and they are not yet war. Is it this which is yet sanctioned by Christian (?) nations? Does it require any strained logic to prove that great psychological waves of insanity sweep over the land? The way to help things along is to expect them and keep them before the public mind.

The generation which has come upon the stage since the great civil conflict knows something of the poetry of war, but little of its reality. It has been most exactly defined by the man who knew it most intimately General Sherman: "War is hell!"

The yellow sensationalists are willing that the fathers husbands, sons and lovers of other people should be sacrificed, but should there be an actual conflict it may safely be assumed that, as a rule, they would stay at home and fight through the instrumentality of black headlines.

66

But great as the physical and industrial loss from war might be, it would be far overshadowed by the accompanying moral and spiritual demoralization. Prospective peace on earth and goodwill to men" would be pushed back perhaps half a century by the surging forces of hatred, and all that is lowest in human nature would come to the front.

Why do ministers of the gospel (ambassadors of the Prince of Peace), humanitarians and reformers so generally remain silent?

Can we as a nation, working out for the world the problems of a pure democracy, afford to engage in a wild

national knight-errantry to right by force all the wrongs of the outside world? Retribution of every kind will follow such a wanton shedding of blood. Even suppose we easily win, who would be the sufferers? Not the Spanish rulers, and not Weyler, but thousands of innocent men who have had no part in the matter.

About War.

BY CARL SCHURZ.

Let us imagine the first news of the destruction of the Maine in the harbor of Havana had been accompanied by clear proof that the catastrophe was caused by a torpedo or a mine-what would have been the duty of our government? Would it have been to rush forthwith into a war with Spain upon the assumption that Spanish officials and, with them, the Spanish government were responsible for the calamity? Or would it not rather have been to inquire whether Spanish officials were really responsible, and, if they were found to be, whether the Spanish government were willing or not to make due atonement for the acts of its agents? What man of good sense and of sound moral instincts would wish that war be resorted to while an honorable adjustment seems attainable? And yet a resort to war is on every possible occasion spoken of, not only by the miscreants with whom the stirring up of a war excitement is a mere business speculation, but even by otherwise rational and respectable persons, with a flippancy as if war were nothing more serious than an international yacht-race or a foot-ball match. What does civilization mean if not the progress from the arbitrament of brute force to the arbitrament of reason and the maintenance of justice by peaceable methods in the righting of wrongs, and in the settlement of conflicting opinions or interests? If it were proposed to abolish our courts, and to remand the decision of difficulties between man and man to trial by single combat, or by street fight between armed bands enlisted by the contending parties, it would be called a relapse into barbarism too absurd as well as too dreadful to be thought of. We denounce the application of lynch law as a practice utterly repugnant to the fundamental principles of civilized life, and as a blot upon the character of a civilized people. What a strange Anachronism it is that while we abhor the arbitrary resort to brute force in private life as a crime against human society, the same arbitrary resort to brute force in deciding differences between nation and nation, although infinitely more horrible in its effects, has still remained the custom of the civilized world, and is surrounded with a halo of heroic romance!

When the news of the destruction of the Maine arrived, we threw up our hands in horror. Two hundred and fifty men killed by the explosion! What a frightful calamity! Thus we feel, and thus we speak, in a state of peace. How in time of war? Two hundred and fifty men killed? Only a skirmish, a slight brush with the enemy. Nothing of importance. A pitched battle comes. Five thousand killed and fifteen thousand wounded on our side; the loss of the enemy believed to be greater. A hard fight, but, perhaps, not decisive. Then more battles; more thousands killed, more tens of thousands wounded; the hospitals crowded with countless multitudes of sick. Naval fights also; of those mysteri

ous monsters called battle-ships some go to the bottom of the sea, some of our own as well as some of the enemy's. How many men perish with them? Two hundred and fifty?

Let

A mere trifle. It must be many times two hundred and fifty to make a sensation. What is then our first thought? The gaps must be filled, and more of our young men are sent to the front and upon the ships. And the crowds of parents made childless, and of widows and orphans! "Well, very sad, but war is war. us take care of them the best way we can to keep them from starving." But more than this. Wherever the armies operate, devastation, ravage and ruin; wherever the warships sail, destruction of commerce and mutual havoc the fruit of years of patient industry and exertion ruthlessly wiped out; and those agencies of intercourse and mutual advancement by which modern civilization has made the nations of the world dependent upon one another disastrously interrupted, and loss, desolation and misery spread broadcast. Was General Sherman wrong when he said that "war is hell?"

But we are told that a nation needs a war from time to time to prevent it from becoming effeminate, to shake it up from demoralizing materialism, and to elevate the popular heart by awakening heroic emotions and the spirit of patriotic self-sacrifice. This has a captivating sound. But is there not something intensely ludicrous in the idea that the American people, while the rugged work of subduing this vast continent to civilization is yet unfinished, needs war to save them from effeminacy? Were we more effeminate before our civil war than we have been since? As to the demoralizing materialism, was the pursuit of money, the greed of material possession and enjoyment, less prevalent after the civil war than before it? Did not the war itself stimulate that "" materialism" to a degree not known among us before? As to heroic emotions and the spirit of patriotic self-sacrifice, it is true that war is apt to call forth splendid manifestations of them. But does war create those noble impulses? Could it bring out the manifestations of them if they did not, although unmanifested, already exist? And is, after all, the readiness to die for one's country the sum of all bravery? Is there no call for heroic emotions and patriotic self-sacrifice in a state of peace? Is not a patient and faithful struggle for the truth against the fanaticism of prejudice, and for justice against arrogant power, as brave a feat as the storming of a battery? And is not that civic virtue more rare than the physical courage of the soldier, and, on the whole, more needful to the republic? On the other hand, while war calls forth demonstrations of heroic spirit, does it not also stimulate the baser passions of a larger number? Have we ever heard of a war which, whatever great objects it may otherwise have served, improved private or public morals or stimulated the cultivation of those quiet and unostentatious civic virtues which are most needful to the vitality of free government?

But will not this horror of war at last make cringing cowards of us all? No danger of that. No peace feeling can emasculate our patriotism. The danger lies in the opposite direction. It is that the popular mind may too easily forget that war is justifiable only when all the resources of statesmanship to avert it have been exhausted, and when the true value of the object to be accomplished through it outweighs the blood and loss of wealth and human misery and demoralization it will cost.

This

being the temper of a high-spirited people, so much more do the friends who seek to drive the nation into unnecessary war by false reports or by unscrupulous appeals to prejudice and passion deserve to be execrated by all good men, and so much more gratitude is due to those in power who, firmly resisting the screams of a reckless demagogy, know no higher duty than to spare the people the Scourge of war so long as the blessing of peace can honorably be preserved. Condensed from Harper's Weekly.

Shall We or Not?

BY GEORGE MERRIAM.

[From its point of view this is one of the ablest discussions which we have seen of the question whether the United States ought to go to war with Spain to stop the inhumanities in Cuba.-ED.] The only ground on which rational men can tolerate the idea of war with Spain is our national obligation, on the score of humanity, to stop the wholesale extermination of the Cubans. The minor incidents which have inflamed the quarrel ought not in themselves to raise any question of war. The gravest of these incidents, the blowing up of the Maine, if, as is almost certain, its causes remain obscure, ought to be peaceably settled by diplomacy, or, if need be, by arbitration. All the lesser

causes of dispute have been handled by the responsible governments of the two countries with a self-restraint which promises well for peace. It looks as if the President and people of America and the rulers and people of Spain sincerely desired peace between the two nations. Each country has its jingoes and its yellow journals. But we here know that the better mind of America is averse to war. It is no great stretch of charity to believe, judging from the course of Sagasta and his cabinet, that the better mind of Spain is averse to war.

The one deep sentiment which makes toward war, on the part of our people, is the sympathy with the struggle of the Cubans for independence, and above all an abhorrence of the merciless destruction of a harmless peasantry by the Spanish methods of warfare. Before the spectacle of the country people swept from their homes and farms into the towns, shut off from the possibility of self-support, and starving by tens of thousands - the blood rises hot within us, and the prompting is strong to stop this horror at our doors, even at the cost of war. And against this cry of human sympathy and righteous wrath, the objection that we have no right to interfere in the affairs of another nation falls but coldly. Are not nations in the last resort members of one family? Have we no obligations to humanity outside our geographical boundaries? Is not the case of Cuba parallel to the case of Armenia, and if we stand idly by do we not merit the condemnation we visited on England and the continental powers?

The force of these considerations is so great that I own the scale has of late inclined in my own mind toward forcible intervention. But other considerations rise, and with growing weight as the possibility of war looms

nearer.

The principle that each nation shall strictly mind its own affairs is not an arbitrary or unimportant one. It

is the fruit of long experience and has its roots in the deepest principles of national development. National salvation must come from within. When after the French Revolution that people, fired with a sublime passion of