Chinese people in the present stage of development, are beginning perforce to take a different view of the matter. In speaking on this subject, "The Outlook" says:

As to actual representation of the people in Parliament, it will be remembered that before the present revolution broke out, local parliaments had been authorized by the Throne to meet in the various Chinese provinces, and in twenty-two of the provinces local parliaments did meet. What is more, they developed into astute guardians of provincial interests as against most of the

provincial officials. This seemed a miracle; but it was speedily followed by another, when the National Assembly-composed of representatives from these provincial parliaments and of nominees by the Throne-met at Peking and blossomed into a body capable of coercing the Prince Regent, impeaching the Grand Council, compelling the institution of a modern Cabinet, electing the Prime Minister of that Cabinet and excluding all Manchu nobles from it, and, finally, forcing the Emperor to accept a constitution! Is there anything in contemporary history to equal this record?

The last hope for Persian independence vanished when the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, made the statement in the House of Commons, on December 14, that the Anglo-Russian agreement was not intended to impair the independence or integrity of Persia, but that Great Britain was not undertaking any obligation to protect that independence or integrity. The Russian government, the Secretary continued, demanded the removal of Mr. Shuster, and the British government did not object to that demand; for the Anglo-Russian agreement must not be upset and two great nations embroiled by the action of any individual, no matter how good his intentions

were.

After what had happened, he agreed with Russia's demand that the consent of the British and Russian legations should be obtained to the appointment of foreign advisers to Persia. He also read a communication from St. Petersburg, which stated that the Russian troops would not advance beyond Kasbin until eight days had elapsed, unless unforeseen events should render an advance necessary.

He insisted upon the importance of replacing Treasurer Shuster at once by a foreign adviser acceptable to Great Britain and Russia, and laid special stress on the importance of the latter country's assisting Persia in securing loans and restoring order; and concluded by saying that since Persia was unable to pay an indemnity, he hoped Russia could be induced not to press that demand. A liberal member, replying to Secretary Grey, said that a poorer excuse than that advanced in the case of Mr. Shuster for taking away a nation's independence had never been put forward in the House of Commons.

The position taken by the British government practically gives Russia a free hand in the so-called Russian sphere of influence. Its effects were apparent at once, as the following account of events in Persia shows.

During the time within which Russia had promised

England to withhold from advancing her troops into Persia, the Persian parliament and cabinet were deadlocked on the question of Mr. Shuster's dismissal. The cabinet advised the cancellation of his contract and the parliament, backed by popular sentiment, clamored for his retention.

The advance of Russian troops towards Teheran quickly induced the cabinet to dismiss Treasurer Shuster and to return the following apologetic answer to the Russian demands:

The Persian government, in view of its strong desire always to maintain cordial relations with Great Britain and Russia, will in the future be careful, when engaging foreign officers for the reorganization of departments of state, that an appointment be not made in a way which would be likely to injure the lawful interests of the two governments in Persia. To this end the Persian government will beforehand exchange views with the British and Russian legations at Teheran.

In the meantime, Russian troops that had entered Persian territory had been attacked by armed Persians who disputed their advance. After overcoming the Persians near the town of Reslit, the Russians, according to press reports, entered upon a massacre of the inhabitants of that place, in which about 500 persons were reported to have been killed, including many women and children, which reports, however, are probably greatly exaggerated.

At Tabriz there was over a week's fighting between the Czar's troops and the armed members of the Persian constitutional party before the Russians gained possession of the town. Then the Russians placed the city. under martial law and set up a court-martial to try the Persians who had offered armed opposition. At present writing, daily executions of victims are reported.

The appointment of a Russian governor and chief of police for the city of Tabriz probably foreshadows the establishment of Russian courts of law throughout all northern Persia. In fact, it is openly announced by the St. Petersburg government that Russia will ignore the

Teheran government and will mete out punishment to the offenders within the Russian sphere in its own way. At the same time, considering the turmoil which exists. in Persia, it is not improbable that the British govern

ment may soon feel called upon to imitate Russia's example and follow a course in Southern Persia which would in turn result in the annexation of that territory to England's Indian Empire.

The Farmers' National Congress, which met in Chicago on December 7, is recorded as favoring a Federal subsidy for country roads, but as opposing a Federal subsidy for ships. The Congress also favors an extended general parcels post; but no reference to the existing subsidies for rural free delivery and the irrigation of arid lands appears in the reports of its proceedings.

The few maritime people who still survive take off their hats to the farmers. The farmers are subsidized and the maritime people are not. The maritime people, when they began to lose their foreign carrying trade half a century ago, asked for a subsidy; but they never got it, because the farmers denounced the idea as robbery. Now the United States has no foreign merchant marine; but the farmers have subsidies, and like them, and ask for more, meanwhile striving to protect the source of supplies by demanding that no good government money be expended on the merchant marine: Sailors are nothing but ocean tramps, anyhow, while farmers are a settle and thrifty class with votes.

The question arises why the farmers, ninety-nine out of one hundred of whom are unfamiliar with all that pertains to the sea, oppose legislation upon an abstruse matter like ocean subsidies. Is it possible that they are being conducted, like a flock of their own sheep, by shepherds interested in having them in a particular fold?

Fanatical theorists and crafty schemers have a habit of influencing public opinion by securing the endorsement of large organizations for legislative policies in which they are interested. Competence to advise is not an essential characteristic of self-appointed advisers of the fanatical type; but the crafty schemers know just what they want and why they want it. Are not some farmer leaders, with the best of intentions, assuming a wisdom beyond that of nautical experts in trying to settle the momentous and intricate question of ship subsidies? Might not sea-faring communities combine, with equal propriety, to oppose Federal aids for irrigation and country roads? Are not the farmer leaders being led by crafty schemers?

It is improbable that the toilers on the farms are com

pletely without sympathy for "the toilers of the sea.” It is equally improbable that they are otherwise than ignorantly opposed to a revival of American shipping, which would create new markets for their products, and save, to be spent at home, hundreds of millions of dollars now being paid to foreign merchants, ship builders, ship owners and seamen. The probable fact is that the farmers are, and long have been, acting as catspaws to pull foreign chestnuts out of the fire.

Half a century ago the Civil War swept away our foreign carrying trade, and the shipping of Europe came to supply our needs. After the war, the remnant of our ships that had not been captured or used up in war service was rotten and rusty in our seaports. The crews had been in the navy or the army, and as their industry was in no condition to afford them occupation, they found employment ashore. All available capital was pouring inland and our shipbuilders and ship owners, four years behind the times, could secure no money at reasonable rates to repair their plants and renew their enterprises. It was then that an agitation for ship subsidies arose. Had it been successful, had a liberal but judicious ship subsidy law been passed, it is probable that decline would have been checked, our shipping in the foreign trade reestablished, and access to markets we had only recently lost assured.

By this time, however, the European shipping interests had become interested. To them a revival of the only rival which had successfully competed with British shipping on the high seas would be a catastrophe; so they resorted to secret influence. Shipping men, and some of the best informed public men in Washington, believe although it has never been absolutely proven that they established a lobby in Washington, paid salaries to unsuspected unpatriotic Americans, bought up shipping papers in the East, and paid for inspired articles in newspapers of the interior. At any rate, a political issue was raised that killed ship subsidies.

This sort of thing has continued to our own day. Νο reasonable man can read the testimony before the select committee of Congress "To Investigate Certain Charges,"

in the summer of 1910, and escape the conviction that the foreign shipping monopoly is still insolently active in Washington, in our press, and in our politics.

In tracing the progress of the attempt to revive our shipping, we find that the inland population of the United States has almost an inherited conviction that at some past but indefinite period of our history there have been shipping subsidy scandals compared to which the subsidy scandals of the Star Routes and the trans-continental railroads were but as sneak-thieving to bank robbery. In the seventies and eighties, politicians throughout the interior having a safe subject for stump speeches ranted against the iniquity of ship subsidies. Thus a hue and cry, almost certainly raised by foreigners, has kept our shipping off the seas more effectually than the Alabama and her consorts ever did.

As a matter of fact, while we have never given ship subsidies even a fair trial, free-trade Great Britain has adequately subsidized her shipping. Since 1870 Germany and Japan, grasping the situation, have created great subsidized merchant marines that now thrive by carrying American passengers and American goods. But we, while more and more subsidizing every other industry by protective duties, persistently denied our foreign shipping during the years it was dying of neglect, and, while starving it, nourished the shipping of our rivals.

Perhaps it is too late to build up our foreign shipping solely by subsidies. It may be that we must now resort to rebates or discriminating duties, in connection with some form of subsidy, to save ourselves from the humiliation of "free ships" from abroad. Still, it is possible that we may yet follow the example of Germany and Japan and subsidize a merchant marine into being. Of course, whatever we do, we must count upon the secret opposition of the foreign rivals who are annually taking hundreds of millions of dollars from us in tribute. We must count on their American agents and the injury done by ignorant politicians. Can nothing be done to enlighten the American people — the farmers and other inland voters - as to the appalling national waste, the positive national danger, of continuing to aid in the upbuilding of enormous foreign fleets while our laws, both actively and passively, discourage our merchants and our seamen from engaging in the foreign carrying trade in which they were once pre-eminent?

Even now voices are heard in the land advocating a subsidy for foreign vessels by allowing them to use our $100,000,000 Panama Canal free of toll. How nice for the British, German, Norwegian, and Japanese ship own

ers.

But what advantage for us alone to have borne the expenses of building the Canal, if we permit its free use to the foreign steamship monopoly? For many years the tonnage of our foreign shipping using the Canal must remain insignificant; but we can at least subsidize what there is of it to the extent of rebating its canal tolls. That would be perfectly fair to our rivals, for they are at liberty to do the same thing in the matter of ships using their canals - although it may irk such of them as have a hundred ships to use the Canal for each one of ours in the foreign trade.

Our present navigation laws are obsolete, inadequate, and more favorable to our rivals than to ourselves; but that is no reason why new legislation for the Panama Canal tolls should not be framed to yield enough to pay operating and maintenance expense without taxing our coastwise shipping. It will be far more economical to subsidize, by rebating their tolls, the few vessels that may venture to carry the stars and stripes to Vancouver or Valparaiso than to let the vastly greater tonnage of Great Britain, Germany, or Japan use our costly Canal for nothing.

It is time our government took steps to save us from having built the Panama Canal for the almost exclusive use of our rivals. And it should not only provide American transportation for a share of the incalculable value of merchandise which will soon be pouring through the Canal to and from the shores of the wide Pacific, but also carriage for our merchants over other world highways, independent of British or German condescension and good or ill will. The leak by which hundreds of millions of dollars are lost each year to the nation should be stopped.

Our country is now settled and one stage of our national development has been passed. With its passing our merchants and manufacturers have begun, cautiously and with the ignorance of inexperience, to seek outlets abroad often to find themselves handicapped because the markets they enter are monopolized by the merchants of countries whose steamers carry the merchandise. Is not our hope of continuing to be the most prosperous of nations going to be jeopardized unless we at once create a merchant marine of our own to carry American products directly, by the shortest routes, to the seaports of all the world? Are we supinely to await the opening of the Panama Canal,- in anticipation of which foreign nations are already establishing new steamship lines,- before we do anything for our merchant marine?

So much is being said and written in favor of the general arbitration treaties at present under consideration, that to understand the subject thoroughly in order to arrive at one's own conclusion, we reprint the full text of the proposed treaty with Great Britain; which is the model to be copied for other such treaties that may be negotiated in the future with other nations.

The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, is also reproduced. There was submitted also a minority report, by three members of the Committee, and a supplementary report by one of these members.

The fact that in a committee composed of men of highly trained intellects, so many plausible interpretations can be placed upon a subject which, to serve its avowed purpose, should be impossible of misinterpretation, argues strongly against its ratification.

ARBITRATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, being equally desirous of perpetuating the peace, which has happily existed between the two nations, as established in 1814 by the Treaty of Ghent, and has never since been interrupted by an appeal to arms, and which has been confirmed and strengthened in recent years by a number of treaties whereby pending controversies have been adjusted by agreement or settled by arbitration or otherwise provided for; so that now for the first time there are no important questions of difference outstanding between them, and being resolved that no future differences shall be a cause of hostilities between them or interrupt their good relations and friendship;

The High Contracting Parties have, therefore, determined, in furtherance of these ends, to conclude a treaty extending the scope and obligations of the policy of arbitration adopted in their present arbitration treaty of April 4, 1908, so as to exclude certain exceptions contained in that treaty and to provide means for the peaceful solution of all questions of difference which it shall be found impossible in future to settle by diplomacy, and for that purpose they have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries:

The President of the United States of America, the Honorable Philander C. Knox, Secretary of State of the United States; and His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honorable James Bryce, O. M., his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Washington;

Who, having communicated to one another their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following - articles:

ARTICLE I.

All differences hereafter arising between the High Contracting Parties, which it has not been possible to adjust by diplomacy,

relating to international matters in which the High Contracting Parties are concerned by virtue of a claim of right made by one against the other under treaty or otherwise, and which are justiciable in their nature by reason of being susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of October 18, 1907, or to some other arbitral tribunal, as shall be decided in each case by special agreement, which special agreement shall provide for the organization of such tribunal if necessary, to define the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, the question or questions at issue, and settle the terms of reference and the procedure thereunder.

The provisions of Articles 37 to 90, inclusive, of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes concluded at the Second Peace Conference at The Hague on the 18th October, 1907, so far as applicable, and unless they are inconsistent with or modified by the provisions of the special agreement to be concluded in each case, and excepting Articles 53 and 54 of such Convention, shall govern the arbitration proceedings to be taken under this Treaty.

The special agreement in each case shall be made on the part of the United States by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, His Majesty's Government reserving the right before concluding a special agreement in any matter affecting the interests of a selfgoverning dominion of the British Empire to obtain the concurrence therein of the government of that dominion.

Such agreements shall be binding when confirmed by the two Governments by an exchange of notes.

ARTICLE II.

The High Contracting Parties further agree to institute, as occasion arises and as hereinafter provided, a Joint High Commission of Inquiry to which, upon the request of either Party, shall be referred for impartial and conscientious investigation any controversy between the Parties within the scope of Article I, before such controversy has been submitted to arbitration, and also any other controversy hereafter arising between them even if they are not agreed that it falls within the scope of Article I; provided, however, that such reference may be postponed until the expiration of one year after the date of the formal request therefor, in order to afford an opportunity for diplomatic discussion and adjustment of the questions in controversy, if either Party desires such postponement.

Whenever a question or matter of difference is referred to the Joint High Commission of Inquiry, as herein provided, each of the High Contracting Parties shall designate three of its nationals to act as members of the Commission of Inquiry for the purposes of such reference; or the Commission may be otherwise constituted in any particular case by the terms of reference, the membership of the Commission and the terms of reference to be determined in each case by an exchange of notes.

The provisions of Articles 9 to 36, inclusive, of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes concluded at The Hague on the 18th October, 1907, so far as applicable and unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Treaty.

or are modified by the terms of reference agreed upon in any particular case, shall govern the organization and procedure of the Commission,

ARTICLE III.

The Joint High Commission of Inquiry, instituted in each case as provided for in Article II, is authorized to examine into and report upon the particular questions or matters referred to it, for the purpose of facilitating the solution of disputes by elucidating the facts, and to define the issues presented by such questions, and also to include in its report such recommendations and conclusions as may be appropriate.

The reports of the Commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or on the law and shall in no way have the character of an arbitral award.

It is further agreed, however, that in cases in which the Parties disagree as to whether or not a difference is subject to arbitration under Article I of this Treaty, that question shall be submitted to the Joint High Commission of Inquiry; and if all or all but one of the members of the Commission agree and report that such difference is within the scope of Article I, it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provision of this Treaty.]

ARTICLE IV.

The Commission shall have 'power to administer oaths to witnesses and take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary in any proceeding, or inquiry, or matter within its jurisdiction under this Treaty; and the High Contracting Parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate and necessary to give the Commission the powers above mentioned, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and for compelling the attendance of witnesses in the proceedings before the Commission.

On the inquiry both sides must be heard, and each Party is entitled to appoint an Agent, whose duty it shall be to represent his Government before the Commission and to present to the Commission, either personally or through counsel retained for that purpose, such evidence and arguments as he may deem necessary and appropriate for the information of the Commission.

ARTICLE V.

The Commission shall meet whenever called upon to make an examination and report under the terms of this Treaty, and the Commission may fix such times and places for its meetings as may be necessary, subject at all times to special call or direction of the two Governments. Each Commissioner, upon the first joint meeting of the Commission after his appointment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the Commission, make and subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that he will faithfully and impartially perform the duties imposed upon him under this Treaty, and such declaration shall be entered on the records of the proceedings of the Commission..

The United States and British sections of the Commission may each appoint a secretary, and these shall act as joint secretaries of the Commission at its joint sessions, and the Commission may employ experts and clerical assistants from time to time as it may deem advisable. The salaries and personal expenses of the Commission and of the agents and counsel and of the secretaries shall be paid by their respective Governments and all reasonable

and necessary joint expenses of the Commission incurred by it shall be paid in equal moities by the High Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE VI.

This Treaty shall supersede the Arbitration Treaty concluded between the High Contracting Parties on April 4, 1908, but all agreements, awards, and proceedings under that Treaty shall continue in force and effect and this Treaty shall not affect in any way the provisions of the Treaty of January 11, 1909, relating to questions arising between the United States and the Dominion of Canada.

ARTICLE VII.

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible and the Treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange of its ratifications. It shall thereafter remain in force continuously unless and until terminated by twenty-four months' written notice given by either High Contracting Party to the other. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals. Done at Washington the third day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.

The Committee on Foreign Relations has reported to the Senate, with certain amendments, two treaties one with Great Britain and one with France for the gen

eral arbitration of differences which may arise between those countries and the United States, and have recommended that the treaties, thus amended, be ratified by the Senate. In accordance with the instructions of the Senate, the committee now submits its report explaining the provisions of the treaties and the purpose and necessity of the amendments proposed. In order to understand thoroughly the nature of these treaties, it is necessary to review briefly what has already been accomplished in the same direction and to make clear the character of the existing treaties on this subject which are to be superseded and to point out the differences between the latter and those now before the Senate.

In 1905 Mr. Hay, then Secretary of State, negotiated with Great Britain and certain other powers general arbitration treaties, which were submitted to the Senate by President Roosevelt for its advice and consent. These treaties provided for the submission to arbitration of practically all questions which did not affect the "vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting states and which did not concern the interests of third parties." Under these treaties the special agreement, which must be entered into in each particular case