66

the purchase of St. Thomas in 1867. The price to be paid was $7,500,000. "It is a worthless island," says Mr. Pierce, геmarkable for hurricanes, earthquakes, and droughts, destitute of productions, and inhabited by a miserable population." No wonder Denmark was eager to clutch that sum of money for a possession that she would not accept as a free gift if it belonged to anybody else. When the treaty of purchase came before the Senate committee on foreign relations, it was rejected unanimously. The committee consisted of Sumner, Fessenden, Cameron, Harlan, Morton, Patterson, and Casserly. Not one of them would consent to it, nor would anybody else in Washington except Seward. The House of Representatives, by a two-thirds vote, passed a resolution against any further purchases of territory.

President Grant, when he came into of

fice, in March, 1869, threw the treaty out of the window at once, so far as the executive department was concerned. Soon after its rejection the island was shaken by an earthquake, which nearly demolished the town of St. Thomas and the ships which happened to be in the harbor. One of the effects of this earthquake was to transfer the centre of West Indian commerce to Barbados, where it has remained ever since. Those of our statesmen who want to acquire the island now, want it for war purposes solely. In this way it would possess many advantages. Being an outlying possession, it would enable us to get into war more easily than we can now. Being easily exposed to blockade and bombardment, it would require expensive fortification and the presence of a considerable fleet. Large naval appropriations would be called for expressly on account of St. Thomas. Much stress is laid on its advantages as a coaling station, but it should not be overlooked that we can get all the coal we want at St. Thomas in time of peace by paying a fair price for it, whereas if we were engaged in a war, St. Thomas would belong to us only on condition that we had a stronger naval force than the Power we were fighting

with.

Senator Hale called up his Hawaiian cable bill on Thursday, for the purpose of making a speech upon it. The present scheme is to drop the Government building and control of the cable-for which, in the last Congress, Senators Hale and Lodge were for some days willing to die in their tracks-and to fall back on the good old plan of a subsidy of $250,000 a year to a private corporation. We do not know how fully Senator Hale explained the contract already made by this corporation with the Hawaiian Government. At the time, it caused no small outcry in Honolulu. The concessionaire, Mr. Spalding, ex-United States Consul, and his counsel, ex-Minister Thurston (how naturally these exes

go in for subsidies!), were charged with putting through a secret and monopolistic contract. The company was to have exclusive rights for twenty years, and to be given, as one Government organ complained, "the whip hand in making terms with Australia, Japan, or any other country of the Pacific." However, as the $40,000 a year subsidy from Hawaii was contingent upon getting six times as much from the United States, it was thought safe to put the act through even with the onerous conditions. In other words, Hawaii gave the company a sort of crowbar with which to break into the United States Treasury. But Senator Hale was, of course, equal to turning this corner with grace and skill. Objection to a subsidy to a monopoly? He hoped Senators would understand that if this country abandoned the project, the British would at once rush in,and fairly cover the Pacific with their devilish military cables. To this there could be no answer, and the bill "went to the calendar." It ought to go to the Greek Kalends.

It appears, from a circular issued last week by Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, that the suggestion for a public subscription in place of the syndicate subscription was communicated by him to the President in a letter dated January 4—that is, two days before Secretary Carlisle's circular was issued. In this letter Mr. Morgan held the opinion that less disturbance of the money market would result from a loan made through and by the syndicate, but, in view of the legislation proposed and the dicussions that had already taken place in Congress, if the President should think best to call for a public loan, he would cheerfully cooperate to that end. He urged his fellowmembers to join in it, and dissolved the syndicate in order that they might be free to do so, and he has pledged his firm to join others in taking whatever portion of the loan may be left over after the subscriptions close. It is fair to presume that the Secretary of the Treasury would not have issued the call so promptly (although he might have done so eventually) without the assurances conveyed in Mr. Morgan's letter, since it would have been a serious responsibility to give a bird in the hand for one in the bush-to reject the offer of responsible parties for all the gold he wanted, on the chance of getting a smaller but indefinite amount from some other unknown source. Indeed, the coöperation of the syndicate was the essential prerequisite of the success of the loan, and it is that coöperation which makes it a success to-day.

The small premium on gold existing at the present time in conjunction with an open Treasury and daily redemption of the Government's legal-tender notes in gold, is a phenomenon which needs some

explanation. It is due to the prevailing superstition that it is not patriotic, or at all events is not good manners, to draw gold from the Treasury with which to pay for the forthcoming issue of the United States bonds. For this reason people will go to bullion dealers and offer them onehalf per cent. or some other premium for gold, and then the bullion dealers will buy sterling exchange and import the yellow metal. Those who sell sterling have to export gold to make their balances good on the other side, and this they must obtain from the Treasury. This explains the phenomenon witnessed last week of gold imports and exports passing each way on the ocean-all in obedience to the prevailing superstition. The premium on gold in the Street is simply the cost of cartage and shipping. It would be much easier and more rational, and likewise devoid of expense, if the buyers of bonds would wait till the time comes to pay for them, and then go to the Treasury with any legal-tender money they have and pass it in. If the Treasury officers say they must have "coin" for the bonds, it is only necessary for the bond-buyer to demand coin for his greenbacks, and when it is given to him pass it back in payment for his bonds.

The idea prevailing in Congress, and in the country to some extent, that the shrinkage of the gold reserve is due to a shrinkage of revenue or an excess of disbursements over receipts, is a mistake. It overlooks two facts. One is, that the Treasury actually has an enormous surplus on hand, more than $100,000,000. In the matter we are now considering, the source of this surplus is quite immaterial, whether from bond sales, or internal taxes, or customs duties, or what not. The money is there, and it is applicable under existing law to all ordinary governmental uses. The other forgotten fact is, that between July, 1890, and October, 1893, the Government forced into circulation $156,000,000 of Treasury notes, besides 36,000,000 silver dollars, or a total of nearly $200,000,000 of currency, for the greater part of which there was no business demand or requirement. That there was no such demand is evidenced by the fact that we exported $141,000,000 of gold during the time that we were putting out this new lot of fiat money. The panic of 1893 had its origin here, and not in any deficiency of revenue. Senator Sherman naturally prefers to look in some other quarter of the heavens for the cause of that financial crash. The fatal act of 1890 bears his name. That he is not wholly unmindful of the truth, however, is made plain by the terms of his recent resolution and speech in the Senate, in which he proposes to imprison all the greenbacks and Treasury notes that are sent in for redemption, and not to pay them out except in exchange for gold. This would not be a bad idea in itself, because it would amount to a retirement of

THE ROOT OF THE TROUBLE.

THE finances and currency of a great and very rich nation are and have been for ten years in such disorder that the Government is borrowing money, with immense hubbub, every, three or four months to keep its own paper at par in a time of profound peace. In the midst of this hubbub all branches of the Government have agreed with wild acclamation, although possessing neither army nor navy, to challenge the greatest maritime power in the world to an armed conflict concern

ing a boundary dispute on foreign soil between this maritime power and a small and semi-barbarous community consisting mainly of Indians and negroes. When this act of folly has shaken the whole edifice of national and private credit, nearly all the public men of the nation in question have thrown the blame on the persons most interested in national prosperity, the bankers and brokers, and denounced them as public enemies, while some have rejoiced in the prospect of having the leading commercial cities laid in ashes by a foreign fleet. Others have gone still further, and accused foreigners of selling their own property cheap for the purpose of annoying their enemies.

In the meantime neither branch of the

National Legislature shows the smallest capacity to pass bills concerning domestic affairs, while one of them is principally occupied in drafting defiances to peaceful neighbors, and in proposing schemes of taxation and finance which the rest of the civilized world looks on as insane.

Along with this state of things at the capital, all the large cities and many of the large States are given over to the government of bosses, who control all legisla tion by means of money derived from blackmail levied on corporations as the price of exemption from confiscatory attacks. In this way the attempts made by persons of acknowledged intelligence and integrity to improve social conditions are invariably frustrated, and the comments of these persons on public affairs treated with hilarity. In fact, in whatever direction we look, we see the classes which civilized men have hitherto agreed to consider bad because venal, or dangerous because ignorant and inexperienced, in full control of affairs. If the public men are wise and skilled and pure, then the experience of the human race touching statesmanship and morals is not worth a farthing rushlight.

The name of this country is the United States of America. What is the cause of all these troubles? It was given last week in terse language by Prof. Wheeler of Yale College in a lecture on the Monroe Doctrine. Said he:

"We say that the message was called out by the danger to our institutions. Why don't we take them in out of the wet and not let them remain out over night? Our danger does not lie in Venezuela, nor in the land south of the frost line. It lies not in contact with England, whose institutions are as free as our own. The liberties of our fathers are in peril. The danger lies in the degeneracy of our public men,

and in the failure of the attempt to get a decent municipal government. Republican government has often been a curse. The ballot has no virtue, and under certain circumstances it is a source of great corruption."

Now, if this be not true, what is the we in this matter with us? Why are wretched condition? If these men at Washington are competent, why do they not get us out of our present slough? Why did they ever let us get into it? Why do we have to borrow money to keep our paper at par? Why do we all wear the "shackles of the money power"? Why has not something been done long ago to break "the power of Wall Street" Why are foreigners able to annoy us by selling their own property at fifty cents on the dollar? Why have we so many tons of silver stored at Washington! Why is it not made to circulate freely among an impoverished people? Why is Spanish America, over which we claim dominion, left in such a condition of ignorance and barbarism? Why are the bulk of our intelligent classes, who do the principal work of our civilization, so discontented and anxious? If they are mistaken, why are they such dreadful fools? Prof. Wheeler answers all these questions, and many more which we do not ask. The cause of all our troubles is the rapid deterioration of our public

men.

When a ship runs on a mudbank in broad daylight, with the charts unrolled and the instruments of navigation in good order, the cause is not the ship herself, nor the passengers, nor the mudbank, nor the daylight, but the captain or the pilot.

An anti-war sermon delivered in Philadelphia during "the scare by the Rev. Joseph May, Dr. Furness's successor, contains one tremendous passage, which we quote in full :

"I have lived through two generations. I recall vividly the shameless bodies which sat in our congressional halls and laid the spirit of the North, the principles of our government, the safety of the Union, prostrate before the slaveholding oligarchy. But I know of no Congress that ever sat before in which there was not at least one righteous man to raise his voice

against national folly and national danger; against the usurpation of the executive and in warning of the perils to which clumsy diplomacy, acute technicality, and rash and partisan speech were exposing our people. Alas, that we have allowed such a class to take possession of our affairs, that when the most dangerous word of this century was recklessly triotism, the mere practical wisdom to rise in spoken, not one man had the virility, the pahis place in stern rebuke, in solemn warning! We have little hope from our politicians of any thing good, or wise, or patriotic."

out caring what follows. It was no Mugwump who said, two thousand years ago, "What king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yot a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and asketh conditions of peace."

Therefore, we think it may fairly be said to the young men of the country that they will study in vain sociology, and economics, and statecraft, and vainly get their patriotism on the boil for war, unless they can put a better order of men, more rational, more instructed, and more upright, in charge of our public affairs. We cannot go on very long out of all intellectual relations with the rest of Christendom, calling wise what they call foolish, wrong what they call right, and treating as malefactors the men whom they treat as benefactors. There has been no special creation either of men or things for the benefit of America. Human reason and human experience work here in just the same way as elsewhere. Two straight lines cannot enclose a space in any part of this continent. It cannot be true here, any more than elsewhere, that people whom no wise man would think of consulting about any private affair are fit to regulate the affairs of a nation of 70,000,000 in peace or war. Behind the currency question, and the tariff question, and the Monroe question, and every other question which agitates this community to-day, lies the question of more honest and competent national and State legislators.

THE NEW "AMERICAN" DOCTRINE. SENATOR SEWELL of New Jersey introduced resolutions on Thursday affirming that the Monroe Doctrine was originally propounded as a warning to the allied Powers of Europe not to attempt to subdue the revolting colonies of Spain; that the true ground on which it is based is our interests, and our interests only; that neither by the Monroe Doctrine nor any official declaration have we ever come under any pledge to any Power or estate on this continent that binds us to act merely for their protection against invasion or encroachment by any other Power; and that when a case arises in which a European Power proposes to acquire territory by invasion or conquest, it is then for us to determine whether our safety and our integrity demand that we shall resist such action by armed force if necessary.

These affirmations are not left by Mr. Sewell to stand as mere abstractions. He goes on to connect them with the immediate crisis by affirming:

late the sound and well-established policy that we should avoid all entangling alliances with foreign Powers, whether they be European or American. That this action was premature, looking to the history of the controversy, and inopportune in view of the business and financial condition of the country.

"That neither Congress nor the country can be, nor has been, committed by the action or position of the Executive Department in reference to the Venezuelan boundary controversy, as to the course to be pursued when the time shall have arrived for a final determination. It will then be our province and our duty to adopt such a line of policy and to take such action as may be then demanded by our sense of duty to the country, and by a due regard for its honor and dignity, the welfare and safety of our people, and the integrity of our institutions."

see fit to do so, and a prohibition to Great Britain to dispute any such claim on pain of war with the United States. It overrules the position taken in this matter by successive Secretaries of State during twenty years of controversy, and also that taken and solemnly promulgated by the President within the last two months in a message which, as it stood, was considered sufficiently warlike. It overrules, also, Monroe's admission of the legitimacy of the European colonies already existing on this continent at the time he compounded his doctrine-for a notice to a colony that it must not disIf Senator Sewell's resolutions had been pute any territorial claim which any introduced a year ago, when there was no Spanish-American neighbor may make, particular excitement on hand, they would is virtually notice to quit. It makes that probably have been adopted without de-colony's existence illegitimate for all pracbate, or, if objected to at all, would have been opposed on the ground of being a needless affirmation of the undisputed policy of the Government. In the absence of any particular stirring of the war spirit,

tical purposes.

This notice, too, which, if addressed to us, would be considered an insult of the most flagrant character, that would range even the most peaceable of us on the side founded upon misinformation, everybody of war in spite of want of preparation, is who paid any attention to the matter (ex-addressed to one of the strongest Powers cept, perhaps, the Manoa Company) would have said that Mr. Sewell was right in his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, but that its reaffirmation was perhaps

proudest and most warlike, and most in the world, certainly also one of the famed for tenacity and resources, which is already in a state of irritation over this very question; and it is addressed by a nation which is borrowing money quarterly to keep its demand notes at par, has no army at all and only a very small navy; and it is addressed in defiance of the protests of the great body of intelligent, sober-minded, and religious persons of all callings, who may be considered the mind and conscience of "this our nation." We can recall no case in history in which any

needless and a waste of time. His resolutions derive their chief significance from the change of public opinion that has taken place since the President's message was sent in. They would have found no place in the Senate's proceedings un less there had been abundant popular support for them. How many recruits Mr. Sewell may find among his Republican colleagues it is impossible to predict. Probably most of them would come to his support if they had not made such a dis-government, big or little, has submitted graceful exhibition when they allowed themselves to be stampeded by the President. They will naturally seek refuge in the other resolution reported on Monday by the committee on foreign relations, which reads as follows:

"Resolved, That the United States of America reaffirms and confirms the doctrine and principles promulgated by President Monroe in his message of December 2, 1823, and declares that it will assert and maintain that doctrine and those principles, and will regard any infringement thereof, and particularly any attempt by any European Power to take or acquire any new territory on the American continent, or any island adjacent thereto, or any right of sovereignty or dominion in the same, in any case or instance as to which the United States shall deem such attempt to be dangerous to its peace or safety, by or through force, purchase, cession, occupation, pledge, colonization, protectorate, or by control of the easement in canal or any other means of transit across the American isthmus, whether under unfounded pretension of right, in cases of alleged boundary disputes, or under any other unfounded pretensions, as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States, and as an interposition which it would be impossible, in any form, for the United States to regard with indifference."

As there is no boundary in certain regions between Great Britain and Venezuela, and as the boundary is disputed in other places, this is virtually an invitation to Venezuela to claim any line she pleases, even the whole of British Guiana, if the Dictator for the time being should

to such terms except after complete debeen presented to Thiers by Bismarck, but feat in a bloody conflict. They might have only after Sedan and the capture of Paris.

We do not need to comment on them at any length, or indeed to comment on them at all, as far as the readers of the Nation are concerned. Upon Jingoes any comment or argument would be wasted. We have for the past two months read the remarks of a large number of their papers on this Venezuelan dispute and the President's message, and have never found in one of them any ratiocinative defence either of the Monroe Doctrine or of the Cleveland Doctrine. All objections to it made by sober-minded people are generally met, by a Jingo, with loud yells, and profuse vituperation, and invitations to quit the country if you do not like it. "Do you not see," you say to him, "that such and such consequences will follow your attempt to put your Doctrine in force as you understand it?" "I don't care a rap," he replies, "about consequences; that's the way I feel. Huroo, huroo!" and then he jumps about like a maniac, and tries to stand on his head.

We need hardly remark that most of the emanations from Congress touching foreign policy just now are to be judged by much the same rules of interpretation

we should apply to the resolutions of one of D s's or Sovereign's assemblies. We must not consider them as acts of government or expressions of national policy. We must examine them as agencies for the delusion of home voters-as part, in fact, of the general humbug of campaigns. Each party just now, within six months of the Presidential nomination, cannot bear to let this dispute with England pass away without getting some capital out of it. A peaceful settlement at this moment would leave all the profits of the escapade with Cleveland and Olney. Something has, therefore, to be done to extract from it a reasonable usufruct for the Republicans. So they are "going him one better." Mr. Gresham said: "You will surely arbitrate this matter." Mr. Olney said: "You must arbitrate or you will be killed." Mr. Cleveland said: "The responsibility of this is awful, but I can bear it." Now, Lodge & Co. say: "You must get out of this continent before the convention meets." This is the precise way in which Debs approaches great questions. They have no difficulties for him.

All we have to say about it to-day is to ask patriotic Americans whether they believe that it is possible for free government, if carried on by such men on such lines, to be permanent or peaceable. This is the question of the hour. It is, we venture to assert, present to the mind of every thinking man and woman in the country. The late chairman of the committee on foreign affairs of the Senate, and a present member of the committee, was present at a public dinner in this city within a month, intoxicated, and delivered himself of an incoherent speech, part oral, part written, which lasted one hour and fifty minutes, and was hiccoughed out to a deriding, hooting, and insulting audience. Yet this man is one of those who have charge of the "national honor "at Washington to-day, and was sent abroad in 1892 as our representative to sit with gentlemen and scholars in a great international tribunal!

DANGER SIGNALS IN NOVELS. MR. THAS HARDY's latest novel has been condemned, on moral grounds, by critics on both sides of the Atlantic with a unanimity quite unparalleled in the case of a writer of his deserved repute. As to the justice of the strictures made on his Jude the Obscure' we will not here express an opinion; but the defence which he sets up, or which his friends, at any rate, set up, is worth examining. Objectors to the propriety of many things in the novel are referred to the preface of the unexpurgated edition. There it is distinctly stated that the book is "a novel addressed by a man to men and women of full age," and that, this being remembered, the author is "not aware that there is anything in the handling to which exception can be taken." In other words, the inference is that by openly re