Australia decided to put it within the reach of the personal interest and initiative of the whole body of the Australian electors. Formerly the Australian colonies were eager for separation; now they are enthusiastic in favor of unity. Defending his objection to acepting the proposed federal constitution without amendments such as those suggested in his resolutions, Mr. Reid said he had to draw a very sharp distinction between measures, such as those dealt with in the New South Wales parliament, and a measure of a federal character. The federal constitution cannot be altered. It is a deed of partnership entered into voluntarily by independent persons to unite upon a certain basis. That is very different to the case of a man who pursues his business alone.

Mr. Reid based his demand for a simple majority in the federal senate on the fact that the proposed three-fifths majority would tend to create rather than prevent parliamentary deadlocks. What," he asked, "is the function of parliament? What is the principle of two houses? The device of two houses may be intended to throw a wholesome influence of restraint over the legislation; in certain cases to act as a very strong brake, so that nothing can be done until the people are appealed to. But in this parliamentary constitution that appeal to the country was maimed and imperfect. A deadlock might have been wholly caused by an utterly irrational attitude of hostility on the part of the senate to a measure of reform of almost universal popularity. The action of the house of representatives in insisting upon the completion of that piece of legislation may not only be eminently wise in itself, but also, as I have said, by the unmistakable verdict of the whole of the constituency of Australia be approved, and yet under that constitution the senate was put in the position which could only be described as that of a dictator." The basis of the franchise of the senate was declared radically unsound. "The constituency which elected the senate was in no sense a constituency of the people. The experience of election by the legislatures of the United States to the senate has not been such as to make that method of election one of a satisfactory character. Then the franchise for the house of representatives was also one of an exceedingly questionable character. It was not on the basis of one man one vote, or one adult one vote. All the inconsistent electoral systems of the different colonies were allowed free play in connection with the national house of representatives. I think we can all fairly say now that one of the essentials of a national house of representatives is a uniform national franchise. Then, again, one of the vital principles of every British community, from the mother country extending to every colony possessing responsible government, is responsible government. Responsible government is the very essence of democratic control. I look through the constitution of 1891 in vain for any recognition of that principle, and looking through the debates I find that the matter had been full and ably debated, and it was deliberately left out so that freedom might be allowed for possible evolutions of the future which might cause the change from responsible government to some other form of government such as in America, where the president is master of his Ministers, and the representatives of the people have not the slightest control over them. If the future suggests so radical a change in the principles of a constitution, that change should not come from Ministers or from GovernorsGeneral, but from the deliberate will of the people expressed in the name of the constitution."

Alluding to the power given to the federal senate to amend money bills for any service other than the ordinary service of the State, Mr. Reid said: "Only consider what questions and what disputes may arise. If a bill is sent to the senate and it contains one item which the senate considers beyond the definition of the annual services in the defence of its rights and privileges the senate

might feel it incumbent upon it to throw it out, on the ground that it broke the constitution and included services which ought not to be included in the measure. These difficulties do not appear to the popular imagination but they are serious, and may lead to a great deal of misunderstanding. I would like to make the practice in the case of all money bills uniform-uniform in the sense that they should not be amended by the senate, because if financial bills of any kind are to be open to the ordinary treatment of amendment in the second chamber, the financial basis and control in the lower house are gone. One of the best attributes of the British system of government to-day is the admirable stability of the public finances, and that admirable stability, which is the envy of the whole world, is mainly to be attributed to the fact that the finances are shaped absolutely in one chamber.

"With reference to the judicial appeal, I may state that in the bill as framed at Adelaide there was a clause expressly framed prohibiting appeals from the courts of the States to the Privy Council. That clause was removed in Melbourne, and as the bill now stands the plaintiff in an action could appeal to the Privy Council, whilst the defendant could appeal to the High Court of Australja. The bill in that respect requires amendment. Unless this High Court of Australia is to be a final court for private appeal, with a reservation that there shall be the right of appeal to the Queen in certain cases, then the position is not a sound one. If it was seen by Her Majesty's advisers that the High Court was establishing a princíple of law of a pernicious character, than Her Majesty should have the power to take the case to the Privy Council in order to set the High Court right. I say that if the High Court is not to be a High Court of Appeal for private litigation, then it should have nothing to do with private litigation, because the more you multiply the means of litigation the worse it is for those who have to pay for it, and especially for those who could not afford it."

The whole speech occupied about three and a half hours in delivery, and was very well received, not only in New South Wales, but also in the other colonies, especially Queensland, where it is generally considered as preparing the way for a wider and more complete union of the colonies than was possible at the outset, when many of the more ardent Australian federalists, in their eagerness to accomplish the object of their desire, unwittingly overlooked the many difficulties in the way of its complete achievement.

The following announcement was made in the House of Commons by Sir Louis Davies, June 1, 1898 :-

"It is within the knowledge of the House that at the request of the Premier and of my colleagues, I went to Washington to have some preliminary negotiations with the authorities there looking to the establishment of a joint commission between the two countries for the purpose of settling existing differences which have been unsettled for years back. I went with that determination and with those instructions, and had interviews with the President and with the officers that were specially appointed to meet the British ambassador and myself to consider these different questions. We sat in consultation every day while I was there, and went over these troublesome questions one after the other, discussing them generally, and, I am glad to say, in a very cordial spirit of good-will and amity. I can frankly say that the best of disposition was shown on the part of Mr. Casson and General Foster, who represented the President on the occasion, to discuss with great fairness all those several questions. After lengthy and prolonged discussions we came to an agreement, which was put in proper form and duly signed by the seven gentlemen on the commission, and which has been forwarded to each of the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States for their final approval. I have no reason to doubt that that approval will be given in both cases, and if it is, there will be a joint commission appointed by the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain, which will meet at an early day for the purpose of discussing and settling and putting in the form of a treaty, if possible, all the several questions which were discussed at our preliminary meeting. The city of Quebec has been chosen as the place of meeting."

The Joint High Commission met at the City of Quebec, August 23, 1898, composed as follows:

For the United States : Senator Fairbanks, of Indiana, Chairman; Senator George Gray, of Delaware; Congressman Nelson Dingley, of Maine; Gen. John W. Foster, former Secretary of State and ex-Minister to Spain, Russia and Mexico; John A. Kasson, of Iowa, former Minister to Germany and Austria, and Jefferson Coolidge, of Massachusetts, former Minister to France.

For Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Louis Davies and John Charlton, M. P.

For England: Lord Herschell.

For Newfoundland Sir James T. Winter, Premier.

Lord Herschell was elected chairman. After holding a number of meetings an adjournment was made for about ten days, and the Commission re-assembled September 20th. Senator Gray having been appointed a member of the Peace Commission, under the protocol between Spain and the United States, he was replaced on the Joint High Commission by Senator Faulkner, of West Virginia. The Conference continued in session until October 10th, when the following official statement was given out for publication by Lord Herschell and Mr. Fairbanks : "The High Commission have made considerable progress with the work, and it has been found necessary to obtain further information on certain points not immediately available. The Commission will adjourn until Tuesday, November 1. It has been agreed that the next meeting shall be held at Washington."

The questions submitted to the Conference were briefly as follows:First-The question in respect to the fur seals in Behring Sea and the waters of the North Pacific Ocean.

Second-Provisions in respect to the fisheries of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in the waters of their common frontiers.

Third-Provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission shall so decide, or otherwise.

Fourth-Provisions for the transit of merchandise in transportation to or from either country, across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including natural and artificial waterways and intermediate transit by

sea.

Fifth-Provisions relating to the transit of merchandise from one country to be delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier.

Sixth-The question of the alien labor laws, applicable to the citizens of the United States and of Canada.

Seventh-Mining of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other.

Eighth-Such readjustments and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous of customs duties applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industry of the other, upon the basis of reciprocal equivalents. Ninth-A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels of the

lakes.

Tenth-Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of the frontier line, by land or water, where the same is now so insufficiently defined or marked as to be liable to dispute.

Eleventh-Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishment of persons in the lawful custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the other.

Twelfth-Reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights.

On April 11, 1898, President McKinley submitted a Message to Congress, asking authority to interfere in Cuba.

On April 19 Congress passed the Cuban resolution, declaring :

First-That the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.

Second-That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.

Third-That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and to call into actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such an extent as may be necessary, to carry these resolutions into effect.

Fourth-That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people.

The day following the passage of these resolutions, the President signed them at the White House, and they were cabled to Madrid with the following ultimatum :

To Woodford, Minister, Madrid:

You have been furnished with the text of a joint resolution voted by the Congress of the United States on the 19th inst., approved to-day, in relation to the pacification of the Island of Cuba. In obedience to that act the President directs you to immediately communicate to the Government of Spain said resolution, with the formal demand of the Government of the United States that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. In taking this step, the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is acomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people, under such free and independent government as they may establish.

If by the hour of noon on Saturday next, the 23rd day of April, instant, there be not communicated to this Government by that of Spain a full and satisfactory response to this demand and resolution whereby the ends of peace in Cuba shall be assured, the President will proceed without further notice to use the power and authority enjoined and conferred upon him by the said joint resolution to such extent as may be necessary to carry the same into effect.

The war began April 21, 1898, and lasted till August 12, 1898, or a period of almost four months. A peace protocol was signed August 12, as follows:Article I.-Spain will renounce all claim to all sovereignty over and all her rights over the Island of Cuba.

Article II.-Spain will cede to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and the other islands which are at present under sovereignty of Spain in the Antilles, as well as an island in the Ladrone archipelago, to be chosen by the United States.

Article III.-The United States will occupy and retain the city and bay of Manilla and the port of Manilla pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace, which will determine the control and form of government of the Phillipines.