is wholly voluntary, both the mediation and the commissions of inquiry are fixed and binding. But an examination of the text of the clauses dealing with these subjects shows that exactly the opposite is true. The whole document is of a piece and the voluntary principle controls it throughout. The commissions of inquiry are simply declared to be "advisable." When constituted they are to be constituted by special convention between the parties in dispute, or, failing that, according to a general plan which is laid down. The United States, if the Senate ratifies the Convention, need never have, unless it wishes to, a commission of this sort between itself and any other nation either European or American.

The same is true of the mediation section. While under this the signatory powers agree in case of grave dispute to have recourse to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers, "so far as circumstances permit," it will always remain optional with any power whether its circumstances do permit it thus to proceed. If, under the provision that neutral powers may offer their good offices, any European powers should offer their mediation to the United States in case of a controversy with a Europen state, it would be in the power of the United States at any instant to declare that the circumstances did not permit, or that the basis of agreement proposed was not acceptable. The mediating powers would then be bound by the Convention (Article 5) to stop, as it is provided that the rôle of mediator shall cease at that instant, and that the good offices or mediation shall have no obligatory force."

We have wondered, on reading Mr. Johnston's article a second time, whether the whole production was not intended to be a huge piece of sarcasm. If not, then his intense chauvinistic dislike of international fellowship and his determination that the United States shall go her way among the nations according to her own arbitrary will, setting up her own standards of judgment and making war on whom she pleases, without any friendly consultation or coöperation with other powers, have led him recklessly to make a special plea against the Hague Convention, for which not the shadow of a ground is found in the document itself. Mr. Johnston cannot find words. strong enough to express his unutterable contempt for the "Harpy powers" of Europe. The United States is so supremely and immaculately good that she must keep her skirts clear of them all,-absolutely all except England, whom earlier in his article he also put among the " Harpy powers," and whose first delegate at The Hague he ranked as a silly and adroit old sorcerer, mixing "poisonous" political drugs with which to conjure away our liberties. So intent is he on his hunt for destructive arguments that he insults not only all Europe, but also the intelligence and honesty of our own delegates at The Hague, and in fact of the government and the whole nation.

66

If we had any fears that the Senate would not ratify the Hague Convention, we should feel tempted to ask the North American Review for the privilege of reprinting the Johnston article for special circulation among Senators. Nothing could be found more fitting to convince them that the Arbitration Convento bring great honor to the United States and great tion is an able, wise and safe arrangement, destined and lasting blessings to the whole world.

The Transvaal War.

The storm has at last burst which is to desolate South Africa. It became clear months ago, from the disposition manifested on both sides, that all efforts to secure a pacific solution were practically sure to end in failure. end in failure. England, or rather the official managers of the English end of the controversy, pressed unreasonable demands which it was certain the Boers would not accept. On the other side, though concession after concession had been made and arbitration urged, there was an invincible determination not to yield to these imperialistic demands, at least the most exacting of them.

The ultimatum of the South African Republic, though it came unexpectedly, was the logical outcome of the situation. The independent spirit of the Boers, knowing as they did the intention of it all, could not brook England's great war preparation and the hurrying of troops to the border. Hostilities began almost immediately after the time of the ultimatum expired. The Orange Free State immediately threw in its lot with its sister republic, and the two little states at once turned their arms against one of the great powers of the world. We are sorry the Transvaal government did not refrain from taking this hazardous and possibly ruinous step. We are much more deeply pained that Great Britain has proceeded in such a high-handed way that it is impossible not to consider her the chief guilty cause of the crime against civilization which this war must be regarded. But it is too late to indulge in these reflections.

The fighting so far, pushed by the Boers with terrible earnestness, has been such as to indicate that the struggle will be a fierce, deadly one. Neither side will spare life or money. For months to come South Africa is to hear of nothing but war and rumors of war, of battles and sieges, of victories and retreats. Britons and Boers alike, laying aside their humanity, are to long for nothing but each other's blood, are to rush savagely upon each other like senseless beasts, shooting and shelling and stabbing each other to death. each other to death. The hills and valleys, which God made for peace and prosperity, are to ring with the roar of cannon and the rattle of musketry, with the fierce battle yell and the delirious shouts of vic

tory, with the bitter blasphemies of despair and the groans of the wounded and dying. All business suspended, railroads torn up, cities bombarded, houses wrecked and burned, women and children ruthlessly driven from home, the country everywhere desolated! The flower of the Dutch population will in all probability be swept away. The British forces, whatever the outcome of the struggle may be, will be fearfully cut to pieces, and more hearts than the Queen's will bleed at the cruel losses. New burdens of taxation will be laid on the people. Deadly race hatred will be engendered which no one now living will see pass away. It is a spectacle to drive one into the darkest caverns of pessimism and despair! These two nations are professedly Christian, reading the same Bible, praying to the same God, pretending to love and follow the same Saviour! And here they are madly exterminating one another, as if they had taken their inspiration from the altar of hell! What the result will be it is useless to forecast. Appeal has been made to brute force and cunning, and the combatants will have to abide by the results. The war will not decide who is right, but only who under the circumstances is strongest, most enduring, most skilful and cunning in the use of deceit and violence. Rather, the war has already decided that both are wrong, and the memory of the great sin which they are committing will never be effaced from human history. It is easy to argue that the victory of either side will prove a gain to civilization. But it is certain that the sin of both sides in going to war has not only inflicted for the present a ghastly wound upon civilization, but will leave great and serious obstacles in its way for generations to come. Civilization will revive in spite of the war, and South Africa will some day grow green again; but the time and treasure and lives wasted can never be recalled.

The friends of peace will learn from this conflict that they must push their work wider and deeper into the hearts and consciences of the people. This is the only abiding remedy for war. The thoughts and dispositions of individuals and of peoples toward one another must be so changed that national leaders like those which have brought on this senseless conflict will become an impossibility. "If nations choose to play at war, they will always find their governments willing to lead the game.' Ruskin means by this that the hearts of peoples must be so changed that there will be no game and no leaders.

posed by the Peace Commission at Paris to the Spanish commissioners was not the purchase of the islands for the sum of $20,000,000, or any other sum. The basis of the transaction was the insistence by Judge Day and his United States. No one knows this better than Mr. Day. associates that Spain should cede the islands to the The Spanish Commission was allowed no choice in the matter. They protested with brokenness of spirit, but Judge Day held the power of the United States over their heads, and rather than go on with the war they agreed to the cession and to the acceptance of the $20,000,000 so graciously offered as a poultice to their wound. This may not be conquest by the sword through actual seizing of the territory, but it is conquest in the essential meaning of the term. To attempt to cover up the real thing by the pretence that the title was transferred through an open and willing sale, both parties acting freely, is worse than a quibble. But it is, at any rate, encouraging to find one of the chief actors in the drama openly confessing that conquest of territory is wrong and un-American, as multitudes of Americans, following Judge Day's act at Paris, have said that it is We may hope that in time he will also have the frankness to confess that the purchase of sovereignty over an unwilling people, which he now holds to be a virtuous thing, because sanctioned by international law, is equally iniquitous and contrary to every principle of our national life. To seize a man in the wilds of Africa or anywhere else and make him your slave is no greater crime than to buy a man of your neighbor who already holds him in enforced servitude.

not.

Massachusetts Republicanism.

At the Massachusetts Republican State Convention, held on October 6, the following plank touching the war with Spain and that now in progress in the Philippines was adopted:

"Under the treaty with Spain, the law of nations put upon the United States the responsibility for the peace and security of life and property, the well being and the future government of the Philippine islands; accepting this responsibility, it is our profound trust that the present hostilities can be brought to an early termination, and that Congress, guided by a wise and patriotic administration, will establish and maintain in those islands, hitherto the home of tyrants, a government as free, as liberal, and as progressive as our own, in accordance with the sacred principles of liberty and self-government upon which the American republic so securely rests."

What is here said about the Philippine situation is entirely unworthy of Massachusetts Republicanism. Nothing could surpass it in straddling ingenuity. "As free, as liberal and as progressive as our own!" If that means anything, it means that the government to be set

up in the Philippines shall be absolutely free and independent, for our own government is free from all others. But the makers of the platform did not mean any such thing. This government in the Philippines is to be "established and maintained" by Congress. That is, the Philippines are to be held by force under the sovereignty of the United States, and their government is to be of our making, not of their own. "The present hostilities can be brought to an early termination" only when the Filipinos abandon all pretensions to the right of freedom and independence, and give themselves totally up to our dictation. It is not surprising that this disgraceful straddling has been severely criticized from both sides. The out and out administrationists do not like it; the opponents of the present Philippine policy detest it. Why was it adopted? Because multitudes of Massachusetts Republicans are known to be opposed to the cruel and un-American conquest which is being made of the Philippine people. If we are not greatly mistaken in the temper of these, not one of them will be enticed by this gauzy stratagem into voting for what they know to be fundamentally wrong.

Assembling of Parliament.

On account of the outbreak of war in South Africa, the British Parliament was convened in extraordinary session on the 17th ult. After the reading of the Queen's speech, the House of Commons proceeded to the consideration of the subject of the Transvaal war. A vigorous protest was made against war by a few members. Even the Liberal leader, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who declared that his party would support the government in the exigency, asserted that the war had been brought on by the government's errors and excessive demands. An amendment to the address on the Queen's speech offered by Mr. John Dillon, declaring that war had been brought on by British interference in the internal affairs of the Transvaal, and that even then a proposition should be made to the South African republic, in harmony with the work of the Hague Conference, received only 54 votes in its support. The ministry was also criticized by the Earl of Kimberly, the Liberal leader in the House of Lords, but the party's support was pledged to the government. Both parties agreed in condemning the Transvaal ultimatum, though a number of members believed that the British government was to blame for having brought it on. On the next day a special message was sent in by the Queen asking Parliament to provide additional means for military service. Continuing the debate on the address in reply to the Queen's speech, Mr. P. J. Stanhope, a member of the Interparliamentary Peace Union, moved an amendment and severely arraigned the conduct of the negotiations with

the Transvaal. Sir William Vernon Harcourt, though supporting the government in war measures, joined in the criticism of the negotiations, as did several other members. Mr. Harcourt asserted that British suzerainty over the Transvaal had been dropped in 1884, as successive secretaries of state had held. While dissociating himself from the measures which had brought on the war, he was nevertheless ready to support the government in the unhappy conflict. On the 19th Mr. Chamberlain, the great mischief-maker, made a speech in vindication of the government's course, nearly three hours long, in which he used such harsh terms of his opponents that he was called to order by the speaker. Sir Edward Clarke, a Conservative, in a brilliant speech, vigorously opposed Mr. Chamberlain's positions, also maintained that suzerainty had been dropped in 1884, and declared that war under the circumstances was a crime against civilization. John Morley spoke in similar vein. Mr. Stanhope's amendment expressing disapproval of the negotiations received 135 votes, among whom were many of the leading Liberals. On the next day a motion of Mr. Dillon declaring the calling out of the militia unnecessary received 36 votes. When the question of appropriating £10,000,000 for the war came up, Mr. Redmond created an uproar by insisting that the money ought to be spent in Ireland. The £10,000,000 was appropriated by a vote of 271 to 32. The protest against the war during the four days of the discussion, though securing but a small vote, was a brave and intelligent one, such as perhaps no British government going to war has ever had to meet.

Of Exceptional Importance.

Mr. de Martens, president of the Paris tribunal, said, in an interview immediately after the decision was rendered:

"I am of opinion that this tribunal of arbitration is of exceptional importance, inasmuch as it is the first tribunal after the Peace Conference at The Hague. It is also important because it is the first tribunal of the kind in which certain rules of procedure have been laid down and communicated to counsel as obligatory, rules which have been adhered to throughout. These rules are the same as were proposed by the Russian government for the Conference at The Hague, and approved there in July. As they had been laid down by the arbitration tribunal in January, they were applied long before the Convention at The Hague took them into consideration.

"Another point of great importance is that ever since 1873 all awards had been decided by a majority, but this is the first occasion where the decision was unanimous. Notwithstanding the great interests involved and the extent of the territory at stake, the boundary which is laid down by the judges is a line based upon justice and tablish a compromise in a very complicated question, the The judges have been actuated by a desire to esorigin of which must be looked for at the end of the fifteenth century."

law.

1899.

Enlightened and Unselfish.

A writer in the Boston Herald, reviewing the volume of Mr. Bloch's "The Future of War" just published by Doubleday & McClure, gives admirable expression to the part which unselfishness is to play in the abolition of war. Mr. Bloch no doubt would agree with all this, though it did not fall in the line of his argument to develop this thought. The reviewer says:

"All this is founded on the idea of selfishness, or, at best, self-interest. The author fails entirely to perceive that the true reason why war is becoming impossible is, not that people are enlightened and selfish, but that they are enlightened and unselfish. Civilized people have progressed in humanity to such an extent that they will not stand much longer the reversion to barbarism that war would entail. It is not simply that we love ourselves more than we did and are unwilling to suffer needlessly, but also that we care more about other people, and revolt from the idea of putting them through a vast amount of needless suffering. It is undoubtedly true, as Mr. de Bloch says, that the development of the business relations of the world has gained the ascendancy of the pugnacious spirit; but it is also true that humanitarian motives have advanced immensely, and their influence is steadily and rapidly increasing to the point where the idea of causing the bloodshed which war entails will not be willingly entertained. The soldier is going down, as Mr. de Bloch says, but the human being, as well as the economist, is going up, and all the facts and phases which the author of this book brings together are only by comparison slight causes which will assist in bringing about the final result."

Conference.

235

Turkish Restitution.

The Sultan of Turkey has issued an imperial irade ordering the rebuilding and repairing, with the assistance of the government, of the churches, monasteries and schools which The were destroyed during the Armenian massacres. edict also orders to be paid sums due to officials or the families of officials who were killed or driven out. The irade pardons fifty-four prisoners, and changes to imprisonment for life the sentences of twenty-four who had been condemned to death. It is a good day when Turkey repents. We shall be glad if the sequel proves that there is a sincere disposition in the Porte to make reparation for the past and to abandon the dire system which has been fruitful of so much repression and woe throughout the Ottoman dominions. Even if the repentance is only for political reasons, it ought to be welcomed. It must have become clear to the Turkish government, during the Hague Peace Conference, that there could be no real friendship between Constantinople and the rest of Europe so long as the régime of tryanny and massacre continued. It will be difficult for the civilized world to put any confidence in these new professions, unless their sincerity be justified by years of "works meet for repentance." But it is Christian to forgive, and if the heart of Turkey should prove to be changed, all Christian people ought to meet her generously rather than to long for the final judgments to fall upon her which cannot have been far away. There is nothing sadder in history than to see a people, no matter what, go out in darkness and ruin because of wickedness and crime. It is the multiplication, by thousands and millions, of individual ruin.

tration, the relations of Russia and Great Britain in the East, the Fashoda affair, the Philippine war ("the most painful of the events of the period under consideration"), and the Transvaal difficulty. After an earnest discussion of the Transvaal question, telegrams were sent both to Queen Victoria and to President Krüger, imploring a pacific arrangement of the controversy. A strong address was also adopted and sent to Lord Salisbury and the other British ministers. A resolution asking that the signatory powers of the Hague Conference might offer their good offices or mediation in the Transvaal difficulty was sent to the public press of the different countries. After an examination of the text of the Hague Conventions, it was decided to send a circular to the peace societies in the different countries encouraging them to do what they can to secure the ratification of these Conventions, to secure the adherence of the nonsignatory powers, and the negotiation of special treaties of obligatory arbitration. A provisional program was drawn up for the Ninth Universal Peace Congress to meet in Paris on the 30th of September next year. The number of members of the commission (board of directors) of the Bureau was raised from nineteen to twenty-six. Seventeen of the old members were reelected and seven new ones were appointed; namely, Dr. W. Evans Darby of London, Mr. Gaston Moch of Paris, Mr. François Kemény of Budapest, Mr. Baart de la Faille of The Hague, Mr. Giretti of Torre Pellice, Italy, Mr. Henri Morel and Dr. Stein of Berne.

Wasted Genius.

Mr. Robert J. Sturdee writes as follows in the London Herald of Peace of the enormous waste and loss of thought and genius in the production of modern instruments of war:

"The amount of thought and ingenuity which the instraments of modern warfare have required to produce them is almost incomprehensible. Take the ordinary magazine rifle, a weapon of wonderful mechanism, one which has needed to have much brain power expended in its production, and this solely for the purpose of destroying human life when a fitting opportunity offers itself. Consider the quick-firing and other guns, the shells and torpedoes. Those who understand the last will fully appreciate the genius which produced the torpedo, if they do not appreciate the torpedo itself. The government dockyards are a marvelous illustration of what time and thought can produce. Where can we find a better summary of the wonderful achievements of the inventive power of science than in the consideration of an ironclad in all its details? So strange and amazing do they appear to us that they are almost beyond comprehension. Enormous armaments have utilized enormous genius in their production; and a proof that that genius is wasted lies in the fact that these are soon destroyed in times of war, and in times of peace they soon become out of date and finally obsolete; after which

they are sold for a price ridiculously small in comparison with what they cost. The men who invented these instruments for wholesale slaughter undoubtedly possessed great genius. They used the power they were masters of in the best way for personal gain, but the world has gained nothing-it has lost much. Why, then, were these things invented? The demand created the supply. It was profitable for the inventors to turn their attention to the creation of those things which the nations were frantic to possess. If instruments of war were not demanded they would not supply them, but would produce other and useful and beneficial things. Of course, the genius of these men was of a particular kind, but no one could believe that they were born with a proclivity to invent murderous instruments only. If there were no such thing as war they would have directed their talents to the invention of things that perhaps would have been of the greatest service to mankind. These we might have possessed had we not demanded the absurd engines of destruction instead, thereby losing not only benefits we might have had, but also the genius that could have produced them. Might they not also have produced the means of saving life instead of destroying it? Their unrivaled genius has been employed in perpetuating and making more terrible a relic of barbarism instead of advancing civilization. Our descendants will one day marvel at our tolerating such a system in the same way as we wonder how our ancestors could have tolerated many follies which we have seen and expelled."

Problem.

The seventeenth annual Indian Conference A Vanishing was held at Lake Mohonk during the second week in October. Mr. Albert K. Smiley's entertainment of the Conference was as regal as ever, and the Mohonk lake, woods and mountains repeated their captivation of all the guests in usual October fashion. The attendance was less than usual on account of the international religious councils and conferences meeting about the same time, but the interest suffered little on this account. The Indian schools and agencies were well represented and the active friends of the Indians were present in good numbers. The Conference was presided over by Dr. Merrill E. Gates, who is now the general secretary of the Indian Commission. Others present were Commissioner of Indian Affairs Jones, ExSenator Dawes, Mr. Herbert Welsh, secretary of the Indian Rights Association, Darwin R. James, Miss Sibyl Carter, etc. Miss Carter's story of the " Smiley Pottery" enterprise, which seeks to do for Indian men what the lace manufacturing is doing for the women, created so much interest that $2,000 was subscribed on the spot for carrying it on. Commissioner Jones' report showed that, though there are weak spots in some of the agencies, the nation's care of the Indians was never more satisfactory than at the present time. After having done so much in the earlier years of its existence to make successful the "peace policy" of treating the Indians, the Conference in later years has devoted itself