operation of the common instincts of humanity, in the presence of distress, and the heartless movement of the inhuman feelings of hatred when war is on. No sooner had the awful explosion done its work than everybody in Havana, from the highest official down to the poorest Spaniard along the wharves, showed his pain at the dreadful calamity and hastened to do what he could in the way of relief. The Spanish Commander put his cruiser at the service of the perishing Americans, boats of all kinds were sent to the rescue, the firemen of the city came to the rescue and tenderly cared for the wounded brought to the shore. This was all an exhibition of real humanity such as would be a credit to any people. But another picture is easy to imagine. If the big battleship had been blown open and sunk by shells from the Spanish cruisers or forts, leaving scores of mangled American seamen struggling and perishing in the waves, a wild howl of "patriotic" delight would have gone up all along the shore, Havana loyalists would have yelled themselves hoarse, processions would have paraded the streets at night, and te deums would have been sung in the churches. Reversing the circumstances, and Americans would have done the same! The swirl of battle and the wild rejoicings over victory leave little place for the instincts of humanity.

The De Lome incident was entirely overshadowed by the more serious affair of the Maine. It never gave the least ground for any uneasiness. There was nothing for the Spanish Minister to do but to pack up and go home, after the discovery of the letter in which he had spoken so abusively of President McKinley and so disparagingly of his own government. De Lome had sense enough to see this, and resigned without waiting to be asked to do so. He knew that he had disgraced himself with both governments. The Spanish government quickly disowned his conduct and apologized to our government, and there the matter ended. The lesson of it is that ministers of state should not only keep a close mouth but a silent pen so far as criticism goes. Their office as the accredited representatives of their nations is so high and important that they ought to abstain absolutely from all unfavorable personal reflections upon either of the governments between which they stand. They may commend and praise, in a prudent way, but criticise never. Whenever a minister of state has reached a state of mind in which he feels compelled to criticise, even through private letters, the acts of either government, it is his duty to resign and go where he can speak as a private individual. As to the Cuban side of this incident, it was not only disgraceful but thoroughly senseless. The deliberate search for and stealing of the letter from the mails has been universally condemned and has proved worse than useless to the Cuban cause. If this thief is an American and can be

found by the government, he ought to be put where other mail thieves go. Whatever indirect effects may result from the acts of Judas, for Judas himself the cause of justice has no use.

As was the case last year, many of the peace societies again this year, especially in Europe, held meetings on the 22d. of February in order to reaffirm in identical language, or nearly so, the principles held in common by all the societies. The following resolution, proposed by Mr. Moscheles of London, and sent out by the Peace Bureau at Berne, contains the declaration made: "We protest against the unwise and unrighteous system of attempting to settle disputes by war, and against the folly of ever-increasing armaments. We pledge ourselves energetically to oppose the rule of force in international relations and to concentrate our efforts on the organization of juridical procedure between nations." In addition to this general resolution one was also passed expressing satisfaction at the recent organization at Paris of an International Peace Association of Journalists. Not all of the societies observed the day. In many places it was inconvenient or considered unadvisable to do so. In this country an interesting meeting was held by the Universal Peace Union in Philadelphia in Independence Hall.

The celebrated Dr. Wayland, who was in New York City when the war of 1812 closed, thus describes the outburst of delight among the people when it was learned that a treaty of peace had been signed:

"At the close of the last war with Great Britain I was in the city of New York. It happened that on a Saturday afternoon in February a ship was discovered in the offing, which was supposed to be bringing home our commissioners at Ghent from their successful mission. The sun had set gloomily before any intelligence from the vessel reached the city. Expectation became painfully intense as the hours of darkness grew on. At length a boat reached the wharf, announcing that a treaty of peace had been signed. The men who first heard the news rushed into the city, shouting as they ran through the streets : Peace! Peace! Peace! From house to house, from street to street, the news spread. The whole city was in commotion. Men bearing lighted torches were rushing to and fro, shouting: Peace! Peace! Peace! Few men slept that night. They were assembled in groups in the streets and in the houses, telling each other that the long agony of war was over, and the distracted nation about to enter upon a career of prosperity."

there exists in many quarters a feeling of dislike, if not contempt, for the French nation, a feeling which is wholly the result of ignorance." Let me assure you that you exaggerate that feeling; and there is not a Frenchman, I believe, who can say so with more authority than myself. gave last night my 1308th. lecture. Out of these about 900 have been given in Great Britain and in the British Colonies. There is not one of my lectures in which I do not preach the love and respect for France, and there never was once an audience that did not receive my appeal with enthusiasm, and did not applaud the sentiment to the

echo.

There may be an ignorant class in England who may dislike and despise the French; but who feeds that ignorance, who caters to that public and keeps them in ignorance? No other than your Press. Read the Times, the Globe, St. James' Gazette, especially the Pall Mall Gazette, run, I believe, by an American, and tell me if they ever mention France otherwise than with a sneer or contempt. Yet these writers are educated men. They have traveled, they must know France a little. They must surely have spent a Sunday in Paris, but they will write articles in which they will inform the British public that the crowds, which on Sunday throng the Louvre Museum are not so respectable as the ones who fill the public-houses of London. They will speak of the "awful" Continental Sunday, knowing his to be a shocking libel, but to please their readers and keep them in ignorance. They will speak of French irreligion, and, while in Paris, will never go inside the churches which they would see crowded to the doors from six in the morning till one o'clock in the afterThe English people do not go to church at six o'clock in the morning, because nobody would see them. The Press alone, my dear Sir, has the power to enlighten the public and to destroy international prejudices. The writer, the lecturer, is read or heard by a few hundreds a-day, the journalist is read by millions. When the journalists will have made up their minds to enlighten their readers, instead of deceiving them, the nations will know and understand one another, and then the peace of the world will be secured, but not till then. Such is at any rate the modest opinion of your faithful servant.

noon.

Rev. A. A. Baart, of Marshall, Michigan, has written the following note to The Independent:

"Referring to your editorial note regarding the old method of christening' a new cruiser with a bottle of wine or whiskey, and the new way of a bottle of water, I am reminded that this ceremony and so called christening' is but a remnant of the old-time blessing given ships by a bishop or priest of the Catholic Church. For centuries this custom has been in use, and to-day in Catholic countries is usually imparted to new vessels at the launching. The prayer used is as follows:

'Be propitiated, O Lord, by our supplications, and bless with thy holy right hand this ship and all who may be carried in it, as thou didst deign to bless the ark of Noah floating in the deluge; extend to them, O Lord, thy right hand as thou didst extend it to Peter walking on the sea; and send thy holy angel from heaven that he may free and ever preserve this ship and all who are in it from all danger; and repelling all adversity, protect thy servants by a haven always desirable and a course always

tranquil; and grant that, having transacted successfully all their business, they may again return in all joy to their homes; Who livest and reignest torever and ever, Amen.'

The ship was then sprinkled with holy water by the priest. This blessing was followed by a banquet at which wine flowed freely, as is the custom in Latin countries. Many a bottle was broken and many a glass drunk to the success of the new ship, not only by the sailors but by the officials who were present. In later times this blessing has been dropped out of the program, and the smashing of a bottle of wine by a pretty young lady has taken the place of the sprinkling with holy water by the priest. Blessing' also has given way to christening' In olden time the sprinkling with holy water might have been (not) improperly called baptism, just as soldiers received their baptism of fire' in their first battle; but 'christening' a ship seems an American product."

Possibly the abandonment not only of the bottle of wine but also of the whole ceremony of "christening" may bereafter become "an American product." Think of "christening" (making a christian of) anything so merciless and terrible as a war-ship! Secretary Long, who is President of the Massachusetts Temperance Society, has in a quiet and graceful way done away with the bottle of wine by substituting for it the beautiful ceremony of flying a white dove. The white dove of peace will certainly make it necessary for the "christening" to go. And the ship, too, by and by why not?

In a clever, racy, picturesque article in the February American Monthly Review of Reviews, in which the John Bull that is to be mingles rather amusingly with the John Bull who has been, Mr. W. T. Stead outlines certain "British Problems and Policies for 1898." So many of these concern international relations as to justify a simple summary of them here.

"Great Britain must readjust her policy to the altered conditions of the time. The Liberal Party, which has hitherto been the support of good government, has collapsed. The Empire stands in isolation in the midst of a multitude of envious rivals. The military system on land is outworn and has broken down. British industrial supremacy is endangered by Germany and the United States. The campaign in Northwest India has been a failure. The senseless policy which has landed Great Britain in Afghan war after Afghan war must be abandoned. Faith must be kept with the hill tribes. An empire that can only be maintained by campaigns of arson and slaugther and by keeping enslaved women for the amusement of the soldiers is scarcely worth the while. Representative government is breaking down. There is a reaction in favor of government by the capable as opposed to government by the counting of noses. Brain has a divine right to rule.

No new principles are required. What is wanted is a policy of imperialism plus common sense and the Ten Commandments. Between the Little Englanders on the one side and the jingoes on the other stands the great body of rational imperialists. We are going to keep

what we have got-if we can-matters not how we got it. But we must not get any more,-for ten years. John Bull must rest till his dinner digests. We do not want any Chinaman to eat. We should have nothing to do with any proposed division of China. The fiscal status quo in the East may be enforced if we enter into a league of peace and fair trade-with the United States especially. A policy of honesty and truth should be followed in India. Any one proposing the extension of British sovereignity among the hill tribes should be hanged. We must stay at Berber on the Nile- unless we can get to Khartoum by water. We must keep on our own territories in the Hinterland of Lagos. A policy of appeasement and reconciliation must be followed in South Africa. 6 First things first'; and the first thing is the maintenance of the navy. Without that Great Britain would be gobbled up like a huge plum-pudding. The army must be also readjusted to fit it to the extended empire which it must defend. What the ablest soldiers recommend, that must be done without any nonsense. But above all things British industry, British manufacturing supremacy must be revived and reestablished. The old policy of laissez faire has broken down. Anything to make English business go. The condition of the toilers must be carefully looked after. If all this is not done soon, the British empire is doomed. Poor ostrich! She must not stick her head in the sand and await her doom."

The navy first, the army next, British imperialism, British supremacy on the sea, British commercial supremacy everywhere, holding all you have, resting and digesting before proceeding to take more, and all this spiced up somewhat with improvement of the people at home and with common sense and the Ten Commandments abroad, that is the great editor's picturesque worldly-moral program for his country.

The new Christian reform daily The Commonwealth, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is to be hoped will be longer lived than some others of its class have been. It issues no "Sunday" edition, and no work upon it is done on that day. It has at once placed itself on record as strongly opposed to all pension abuses, and against all bidding for the soldiers' vote by the continuance of unjust pension legislation. It is distinctly for international arbitration and the ways of peace. In an editorial referring to some recent remarks by Charles H. Cramp, the builder of war-ships, it says:

"The Commonwealth will go as far as Mr. Cramp in condemnation of silly persons who think it their duty to wear English clothing, imitate English modes of speech and ape the follies of English society. But The Commonwealth is no jingo, has no sympathy with the jingo spirit; is opposed to the impudent, domineering and aggressive spirit falsely called the American policy,' and has a supreme contempt for the counterfeit patriotism which insists that an American who is not always making faces at some other nation-preferably England-is a poor cur,

Mr. Frederic Passy, the indefatigable apostle of peace, gave during the month of January in the south of France, a series of lectures on disarmament-immediate, gradual, proportionate disarmament. The same lectures had previously been given during the month of December at various places in and about Paris.

On the occasion of his installation recently, the new Lord Mayor of Dublin was accompanied from the Mansion House to the City Hall by a civic procession. The program as originally drawn up included a military escort, but in deference to the wishes of the Nationalists, who objected to the military element, this feature of the program was omitted. The Unionist members of the Corporation protested against the Mayor's action, and refused to join in the procession.

For arraigning the French government for its conduct in the Dreyfus affair Emile Zola has been sentenced to one year's imprisonment and a fine of three thousand francs. Outside of France, the general opinion is that the trial was a mere travesty of justice, all evidence by which Zola might have sustained himself being ruled out of court.

The Spanish man-of-war Vizcaya has made its "friendly" call in New York harbor, and gone away. Our government took every precaution that the vessel should incur no risk while in American waters.

Count Muravieff, the Russian minister for foreign affairs, has announced that all North China ports which shall hereafter be under Russian control will be freely open to the commerce of the world.

The International Peace Association of Journalists recently organized at Paris, celebrated its establishment by a grand banquet on the evening of February 26th. The speakers were Mr. Frederic Passy, Senator Trarieux, Messrs. Barodet, Berthelot, Sorel and Merillon, all of whom are members of the Comité d'honneur.

During the recent excitement over the destruction of the Maine, Congressman Boutelle, chairman of the House Committee on Naval affairs, said that he considered any man who by speech or writing tried to influence public sentiment at such a time as guilty as the man who would touch a match to the powder magazine of a vessel. It was a time for calmest judgment iustead of unguarded talk of a war which would entail the loss of thousands upon thousands of people.

. . Our Ambassador at Berlin has secured a revision of the order excluding American fresh fruit from Prussia. Dried fruit and all fresh fruit that is not infected will be

permitted to enter. The order was originally issued to protect German fruit against infection from the San Jose louse carried in by American fruit, and not in retaliation, as was charged.

At a banquet at Madrid on February 25th to Señor Bernabe, the new Spanish minister to Washington, our Ambassador, General Woodford, spoke in the strongest terms for peace between the two countries. His words produced a strong revulsion of feeling among the Spanish in favor of America.

The Annexation of Hawaii.

BY PROFESSOR H. E. VON HOLST, PH.D. Address delivered before the Commercial Club of Chicago, Jan. 29, 1898.

That the Sandwich Islands are one of the fairest spots on God's earth, and of considerable economical value, nobody gainsays. I, however, hold myself justified in passing by this side of the question, for the simple reason that all the economical advantages to be derived from them can be secured without annexation, nay, are secured already. That the future will change nothing in this respect against the will of the United States is certain, because the immutable facts of the case render it palpably and eminently the interest of the islands to maintain the established economic relation with this country.

Be

The second reason adduced for annexation is the alleged great value of the islands from a military point of view. Some weeks ago, I was triumphantly told that, as to this, all our naval officers are agreed, and I raised great laughter at my expense by replying that I could by no means recognize our naval officers as an authority whose ipse dixit settles this question. At the risk of meeting here with the same fate, I repeat this declaration. A priori, our naval officers cannot be considered wholly impartial witnesses. It is to be presumed that they will be more or less biased in favor of whatever tends to increase the import of their vocation. This is no reproach, but simply saying that even our naval officers are heirs to human nature. Does the past history of mankind not warrant the statement that the military have been fully as prone as other mortals to view public problems through the medium of their class-interest? sides, it will have to be admitted to be at least a possibility that the perspective of military men may be marred by taking a somewhat one-sided, what I should call a too technical view of it. Into military questions of this character largely enter factors which common sense is fully capable of judging correctly. And, finally, I do not hesitate to venture the assertion, though it may expose me to the charge of egotism and arrogance-in military questions of this character, also, historians can lay some claim to speaking as experts. It goes without saying, that this does not extend to tactical and strategic questions, partaking of a strictly technical character and requiring a knowledge of practical details. But if they have studied the military history of the world with open eyes, they must be perfectly familiar with and competent to judge of the general facts and causes on which military strength or weakness necessarily depends. In this re

spect, an able historian even holds vantage ground over the majority of military men. If these are not also, to some extent, historians, with a dash of statesmanship in their intellectual makeup, their very mastery of the more technical sides of their profession can easily become a film over their eyes as to these general facts and causes. The historian, lacking this kind of knowledge, can only take a bird's-eye view, and that does not offer such obstruction.

Let us, however, grant, for a moment, that the military value of the islands is all our naval men claim. Ought that to determine us, in case military objections to annexation must be admitted to exist in other respects? I think clearly not, because I confidently defy any one to successfully refute the assertion that we can never have a war unless it be of our own seeking, and, therefore, the advantage would be merely a fictitious gain, so long as we do not put it to improper and harmful use. So long as we do not demand of other nations more than is justly our due, and do not force them to the alternative of drawing their sword or letting their honor be trampled upon, they, without a single exception, will never appeal to the ultima ratio. The reason is neither that they love us so much, nor that they stand in such awe of our military resources, but simply that they are not idiots. Unless their potentates and ministers are idiots, they cannot fail to see that, in the given and unalterable condition of things, even a successful war would be to them absolutely barren of any advantages, and that even the most successful war would impose upon themselves incalculable sacrifices. A cession of territory is out of the question, for territory of the United States-with the exception of uncoveted Alaska-being compact and extending over half a continent, the ceded strip of land would be simply an earnest of eternally renewed wars till it was regained; and the Franco-German war of 1870-71 has forever settled the question that the greatest war indemnity which can possibly be imposed upon a vanquished country, falls far short of the expenses of the victorious nation. For these reasons, the United States are the one nation on earth whose peace is wholly in its own hands.

That we can, nevertheless, sooner or later be involved in a war, is unfortunately only too true. Therefore, it is proper to compare our actual condition with what it will be after annexation.

Our Western coast, say the annexationists, is dangerously exposed; the way to it will be most effectively blocked to every enemy if Hawaii is ours, for the hold of no man-of-war is big enough to steam from Asia to Australia over the vast Pacific without recoaling, and that can be done only at Hawaii. It must be conceded that there is some truth in this, but if we look a little closer we will become satisfied that, after all, it does by far not amount to as much as it would seem at first sight. And just as to that power with which we are the likeliest to clash, and whose navy is equal to the combined naval forces of any other two powers, it is of the least consequence. John Bull is still so large a land-holder on the Western coast of America that he need not defer striking a blow at us on the Pacific till he has got his war-ships over from Asia and Australia. As to all other powers, we would only gain some time by this coaling question, valuable, indeed, but by no means of decisive import. There is no means of effectively protecting our shipping but by an adequate navy, and our seaports can be suc

cessfully defended only by efficient coast defenses. As to the creation of such a navy and such coast defenses, the possession or non-possession of Hawaii is, however, of no relevancy, and, in point of time, it requires not weeks or months, but years.

In itself, Hawaii is of no military value whatever. This assertion is fully endorsed by Captain Mahan, who is usually considered our leading naval authority. He writes: 66 Military positions, fortified posts, by land or by sea, do not by themselves confer control. People often say that such an island or harbor will give control to such a body of water. It is an utter, deplorable, ruinous mistake." When we have an adequate navy, then, but only then, Hawaii will indeed constitute a point d'appui of no mean value in its operations for the protection of our shipping in the Pacific. This is true, but it is only half the truth. The reverse of the medal is, that to be adequate, our navy would have to be considerably larger, if Hawaii is ours, than if it is not ours. The reason is that we would need a navy large enough to protect not only our shipping and our coasts, but also Hawaii. If we make it a formidable military stronghold, as we must do according to the annexationists, any first-class naval power is likely, in case of war, to make it a principal object of attack, because, being at such a great distance from our real seat of power, its defense will be difficult, and necessitate the withdrawing of a large part of our naval forces from other points, thereby exposing us there to telling blows, more especially affecting us economically. That we would much rather suffer these than risk anything as to Hawaii, admits of no doubt. For then we would not think of it only as a strategic point. We would consider our honor engaged, and rather than yield as to this point of honor, we would submit to any sacrifices in money and in blood. This being so, we are justified in feeling perfectly sure that, if we conclude to take possession of Hawaii, we shall always be able to keep possession of it. That we can do it, is, however, no proof that we ought to put ourselves under the necessity of doing it. Ought we to consider the game worth the candle? We are now, in a sense, practically invulnerable. The reasons are so obvious that I cannot spare the time to elucidate them. Ought we, without any need, to acquire a spot at which an enemy can hit us infinitely harder than anywhere else? If the mother of Achilles had had forethought enough to bring the whole body of her baby into contact with the water of the Styx, would the hero have eagerly snatched at the proffered gift of a heel, which would not be impenetrable to the arrow of Paris? That is what we are invited to do. The expense involved in rendering Hawaii a formidable military stronghold is comparatively of no moment. The decisive point, as to the military side of the question, is that, what at first sight seems to be a source of strength will, by directly and indirectly acting as a drain upon our force, ultimately prove to be a source of weakness. When we come to realize that, it I will be too late. Other mistakes we can correct. This would be a step that could not be retraced, and it is this that renders the issue of such tremendous import. Not only during a war, but always public sentiment would see honor" as an insurmountable obstacle in the way. To make the best of a bad job, would be all that was left to us.

66

I said, a minute ago, very deliberately, we would bur

den ourselves with it without any need. That this assertion meets only with derision and indignation on the part of the annexationists I know full well. Some of them believe, and all of them try to make us believe, that we act, in a way, under compulsion, because if we do not take Hawaii, most certainly some other power will-probably England. For proofs, we ask in vain. The question why some other power, especially England, did not take it long ago, although the natives could never have offered any resistance worth speaking of, remains unanswered. That the same cry has been raised every time we were after some territory; that it has never been substantiated; that it was most drastically disproved in the case of St. Thomas by England's not offering a shilling for this breeding place of earthquakes and hurricanes" when we had failed to buy it, and in the case of San Domingo-it is all of no avail. The cry has hardly ever failed to have the desired effect. Small wonder, there

66

fore, that we hear it now. But I ask: Has not the time come, at last, when we can afford to think high enough of our power as well as of our dignity, not to let the cry"England!" have the effect upon us that the red cloth has upon the bull?

Nor do I stop there. I can serve the annexationists with an answer to the question why-if their assertion be true that Hawaii is coveted by other nations—it has not been grabbed long ago. Simply because all the world knew that the United States would not be an indifferent looker-on. Ever since 1825, when, measured by the standard of their present power the United States were a mere stripling, the notification-given, by the way, not only to the European but also to the other American states (Mexico and Columbia. See my Constitutional History of the United States, I., 428-430.)-that they would not "allow" and "permit" Cuba to pass into the hands of any other power, has sufficed to prevent the materializing of the projects entertained in different quarters with regard to the pearl of the Antilles. about thirty years ago, though they had but just emerged from the most gigantic civil war history knows of, their pronouncing, without any blustering, but very firmly, the two words "we object," sufficed to make the French clear out of Mexico. Is it, then, not a moral certainty that their categorical "hands off!" would now be respected? It surely bespeaks neither levity nor presumption to assume that what more than half a century ago was justly deemed a sufficient curb upon the supposed covetousness of the great European powers will not now prove too weak a bit upon Japan, the new bug-bear with which the annexationists try to scare us into annexation.

And

This disposes also of an argument I heard the other day advanced by a distinguished Hawaiian. If I understood the gentleman correctly, his declaration was to this effect: If the United States do not accede to our request, dissensions are sure to break out among the ruling elements of the islands, resulting in eternal intrigues with other powers, which it will be impossible to terminate in any other way than by bringing about annexation by one of them. It won't take the islanders long to come to the conclusion that this is not the way to set their affairs to rights, because the warning given by the United States to all other powers will have stopped their ears to such solicitations.

The objection that the islands are a sovereign state, and that we have no right to interpose our veto to their

E