sistent views expressed by the different members of the court, are, I believe, without a parallel in our judicial history. It is unfortunate that the cases could not have been determined with such a preponderance of consistent opinion as to have satisfied the profession and the country that the conclusions were likely to be adhered to by the court. Until some reasonable consistency and unanimity of opinion is reached by the court upon these questions, we can hardly expect their conclusions to be final and beyond revision."

"What are the direful consequences that inhere in the application of the provisions of the Constitution to the Territories?" he continued: "where is the bugbear? Is citizenship really so extremely serious?" The judgment, he maintained, was utterly inconsistent with the past history of this country, and the opinions of the different justices are "in irreconcilable conflict with each other." In short, "the foundation upon which this decision rests is too insecure to insure permanence."

Mr. Littlefield's address, we are told in the press despatches, "drew forth loud and long-continued applause, and a motion was made to tender him a vote of thanks." One of the lawyers present, however, Mr. Adolph Moses of Chicago, protested against what he styled "an unwarranted attack upon the Supreme Court of the United States," and on the following day Judge Townsend, of New Haven, from whose court the insular cases were referred to the Supreme Bench, vigorously defended the legality of the decisions, declaring that Mr. Littlefield had given no facts to "support his assertion that the decisions of the Supreme Court were contrary to precedent and authority."

In many papers Mr. Littlefield's sentiments find a sympathetic echo. "The newspapers, it seems, are not alone in their inability to make head or tail of the business," remarks the Boston Herald (Ind.); while the Rochester Post-Express (Rep.) thinks that Mr. Littlefield's criticism was "the professional expression of what many plain people felt." In other quarters, his action is deprecated, on the ground that it is futile and can only tend to lessen respect for the Supreme Court. "It is especially unfortunate," says the Kansas City Star (Ind.), "that the court should be discredited in an association of lawyers in which the most exalted institution of the legal profession should be held in the highest esteem." The Atlanta Constitution (Dem.), too, objects to the "thrashing over of old straw." It says:

The Supreme Court decisions referred to but placed upon record an accomplished fact. The new territories are ours as irrev

ocably as the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican cession. We should leave the discussion of ancient history to such men as Senator Hoar and Mr. Littlefield, and deal with the facts before us. A great political party exists for the handling of current questions with a view to the future good. It can have no time for the examination of tombstone records."

On the other hand, the Baltimore News (Ind.) thinks that the question is not finally settled yet, and declares:

"The incident furnishes striking evidence of the widespread existence of feeling in opposition to the novel imperialist policy of the nation. It has been the custom of imperialist newspapers, from the very beginning, to ridicule anti-imperialist sentiment as being peculiar to a few eccentric persons, chronic growlers, and the like. This has been done in face of the fact that such vigorous and stalwart Republicans as Speaker Reed and Senator Hale, as well as such veterans as Edmunds and Hoar and exPresident Harrison, were as emphatically opposed to the new policy as any one. The difficulty that has been encountered all along has been that there never was a chance to refer the question to a real decision by the people or their representatives. Mr. McKinley slid into the expansion business with the smoothness and skill for which he is so distinguished, and, while all along following what seemed to him the popular drift, really carried the country sliding along with him into its present attitude in reference to the control of subject provinces. How largely the judgment thus carried into effect has been a judgment rendered in default may, to some extent, be inferred from the occurrence of yesterday at Denver. Had the Democratic Party in the last campaign been in such condition for a fight as it was at any time from the campaign of 1876 to that of 1892, both inclusive, a very different story might have been told."

A CUBAN VIEW OF OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LATIN REPUBLICS.

SOM

OME of the papers published in Central and South America look upon the Monroe Doctrine as a mask that covers some sinister designs that the United States has upon the smaller republics of the western hemisphere. One of these papers is El Mundo, of Havana. El Mundo has a suspicion that the United States will make the Venezuela-Colombia affair a pretext for absorbing those countries, and that it will proceed, on one pretext and another, to do the same by all the other nations of the western continents. It says, in rather picturesque rhetoric:

"The United States, in the delirium of greatness and might in

which they are, have trampled down everything, commencing with their word of honor, pledged in the face of the world, only attentive to the sordid longings of covetousness that after a slow accumulation has exploded in the moment that to them has seemed the most propitious.

"Now, and with the motive of the war in Colombia, the Yankees prepare to intervene in that Spanish-American republic, and the press of Madrid and of France advise Colombia to reject said interference that is nothing more than artfulness erected into a system to arrive easily and softly, without even imperiling life, to the tranquil possessions of a new portion of the continent. "With the sad experience acquired by us we put Colombia and the other nations of our race on their guard, so that by all means they prevent American intrusion in their dominions, under the penalty otherwise of seeing themselves enveloped by the iron bonds of the empire of William I., and either let themselves be yoked by the foreigner or sustain with him a gloomy death-duel, eternally long and teeming with scenes of extermination."

The only hope that El Mundo sees of successful opposition to the United States is in "true union among all who speak the Spanish language," and it predicts that if such a union is not formed, the race in America will disappear "at the hands of a hybrid monster of Saxon countenance which has hurled himself against it with tooth and nail!" La Lucha (Havana) thinks that El Mundo must be suffering from "fits of frenzy that resemble those produced by delirium tremens," and remarks that the above article "amply shows that there is some screw loose somewhere."

and in the United States has been caused by irresponsible writers. "The American correspondents of English newspapers," he

says, "have always been, with rare exceptions, completely out of touch with

American opinion," while "the so-called American writers in English reviews are mostly denationalized persons, whose only aim is to show how superior they

SAMUEL E. MOFFETT,
Editor-in-chief of the New York Journal.

are to the mass of their country men." Considering, first of all, the question of American sentiment on the Boer war, Mr. Moffett says:

"Four years ago America's attitude would have been one of sympathy for the Boers, intensified by hostility toward England. Now it is one of sympathy for the Boers, checked by friendship for England.

"At the close of the Spanish war it seemed as if the old antiBritish spirit in the United States had become extinct. If England had become involved in a war with any Power of Europe, or, still better, with a combination of Powers, American sym

pathy would have poured out in a resistless flood. The stronger the league of England's enemies, the higher would have arisen the tide of American good will, and, in case of need, sympathy would have been translated into action.

"Unfortunately, the new American regard for England-something, let it be remembered, for which there was neither precedent nor preparation in all the century and a quarter of our national existence-was subjected at the very outset to a strain that would have tested severely a friendship rooted in the habits of generations. Great Britain could have engaged in no enterprise so well adapted to chill American sympathy as her attempt to extinguish the independence of the little South African republics. Americans do not feel altogether easy in their consciences about their own position in the Philippines; but they found themselves charged there with the responsibility for the maintenance of order in a country that had never had an independent government, among a variety of races in all stages of civilization and barbarism, and they were vehemently assured by their European friends, especially in England, that if they shirked that responsibility they would be committing a crime against humanity. But they have never regarded the enterprise with enthusiasm, nor cherished vindictive feelings against the Filipinos fighting for their independence. .

As to the argument that England's interference was justified because the Boer states were ruled by a corrupt oligarchy, it proves too much to pass muster in America. We know something of corrupt oligarchies ourselves. If the government of Kruger was as black as its bitterest enemies ever painted it, it was no worse than the city government of New York, and infinitely better than the city government of Philadelphia and the state government of Pennsylvania. If England had a right to subjugate the Boer republics in the name of honesty, she has an equal right to assume the administration of New York to save the people from Tammany, and of Pennsylvania to rescue them from the Republican machine."

Mr. Moffett ridicules the idea that anti-British feeling in the United States is due to the influence of American school histories or to the "Irish vote." The relations between the two countries, he says, depend not upon sentimental considerations of any kind, but upon their present national policies. The American policy is simple, being based on the fact that "the United States is, and intends to remain, the paramount Power of the western hemisphere." He continues:

"If this fundamental principle be once accepted, no country will have any trouble in maintaining harmonious relations with the United States. The American people take very little interest in affairs outside of their own hemisphere. They have found themselves accidentally involved, to some extent, in Asia, but they do not enjoy the experience. They are perfectly willing to give England a free hand in South Africa, altho sentimentally they deeply deplore her course. They are not inclined to be exigent in looking after the interests of American citizens abroad. They have no desire to interfere with the tariff arrangements of other countries, however hardly they may press upon their commerce. In diplomatic conferences affecting matters outside their own sphere of influence they will usually be found easy-going, but in discussions with European Powers on matters affecting the American continent they are as hard as Krupp armor-plate. They would give up all China more willingly than a single inch of Alaska."

It has been the British failure to recognize this sentiment, declares Mr. Moffett, which was chiefly responsible for the friction over Venezuela and the Nicaraguan Canal; and it is the prevalence of this sentiment which makes the Canadian problem one that is likely to become more and more important in the future. "There never were such possibilities of irritation and danger in the relative positions of any two countries in the world as there are in those of Canada and the United States," declares the writer. He concludes:

"There is no reason why Englishmen and Americans should be anything but friends. As Englishmen and Americans they have no cause for quarrel and every cause for good-will. The only thing that can possibly impair their good relations is English interference with the American policy in the western hemi

tants, who speak various Philippine dialects. There are many difficulties in the way of a sudden transition from Spanish to English, but under the gradual process of educating the youth the change will probably be made easily and naturally."

Another interesting part of the report tells about the selection of teachers. To quote again from the same paper:

"The Philippine school law authorized the appointment from the United States of 1,000 school teachers, and of these 781 have been selected. Of the 487 soldiers who applied for positions, 79 passed the examinations, and have exchanged the bayonet for the pen. The school teachers chosen seem generally to be of an unusually high grade, both in character and ability. The 781 were sifted from among over 8,coo applicants, who filed strong testimonials from trustworthy sources, and care was taken to select those who had given evidence of equipment and teaching

ability, rather than those who applied because they had nothing else to do. In many instances ambitious young men have entered upon the work, who were filling most acceptably positions as teachers at home.

"The educational system in the archipelago consists of eighteen divisions, each with a division superintendent. One high school in each division will be established next year, and teachers' institutes will soon be held in all the provinces."

The Filipinos, old and young, are very eager to learn, and they crowd the schoolrooms until sometimes one teacher has one or even two hundred scholars. Superintendent Atkinson says of the schoolhouses:

"The greatest present need is that of adequate and suitable school buildings. All school buildings occupied by soldiers, or in any way used for military purposes, should be vacated and turned over to school authorities at the earliest practicable moment, and arrangements should be made for the rent or vacation of all convents or other church property now used for school purposes. Nearly all the buildings that have been used for military purposes are in poor condition. It will be necessary for the municipalities to spend money for their alteration and repair. Present school buildings consist, generally, of one or two large rooms, with several teachers carrying on work in each room."

The question of religious instruction was soon settled. Says the report:

"Upon receipt of an official copy of Act No. 74 of the Philippine Commission, which forbids any religious instruction by the teacher, a comprehensive order was issued forbidding the practise of religious devotions or their employment as means of punishment, the discontinuance of all teaching of the catechism or religious doctrine, and the removal from the schoolhouse of all books containing such matter, and the removal from schoolrooms of crucifixes, religious emblems, sacred pictures, placards, etc. These orders were complied with. There was no protest from either parents or teachers, and, as above stated, no diminution in the attendance, the school year closing with the largest attendance in the history of these public schools. To many of the teachers the change was apparently welcome."

The people are so eager to learn that Superintendent Atkinson thinks "it will not be necessary to resort to compulsory education"; and he adds the interesting remark that "Tagalo children, both male and female, are the most precocious I have ever seen, very bright and studious and exceedingly well behaved."

GERMANY'S ADVANCE IN SOUTH AMERICA.

PEOPLE who have been expressing the fear that Germany

may get a commercial foothold in South America will be interested in the discovery that Germany already has a larger trade with that continent than we have. The Boston Herald brings out this fact in a striking article, and makes the point that in the event of certain international complications (which Senator Lodge and others have freely predicted), Germany "might easily put forth the plea that we had not the least right to interfere with the natural development of German trade." Says The Herald:

"To show the relative commercial standing of the two countries, we give below the sales and purchases made by Germany in a number of the South American countries during the calendar year of 1900 and the sales and purchases made in these same countries by the United States, in this instance the transactions being based on those which took place during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901. The sales were as follows:

ONE PHASE OF IMPERIALISM: The American schoolmaster at work in the Phpines.

-The New York Tribune.

Germany..

United States.

"The entire purchases and sales made by the United States in South America for the last fiscal year amounted in round numbers to $155,000,000. That constituted the entire value of our exchanges on both sides, and included countries not specified above-Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, British, Dutch, and French Guiana, and Paraguay. But the German purchases and sales in the countries where the classification is made were just about as large as the purchase and sales of the United States in the entire continent of South America, and if we could have, as we have not, the commercial returns from the republics we have classified, it would doubtless be shown that the German commercial interests in our neighboring continent are considerably larger than our own."

The remedy for this unfavorable state of our trade, thinks The Herald, lies in trade concessions to our Southern neighbors. It says:

46

'Considering the diplomatic interest which the German Government has recently shown in South American affairs, and its apparent desire to make its influence felt in opposition to our own in South American matters, it would be no more than prudent if we were to broaden and improve our relations with our Southern neighbors by conceding to them in the way of trade quite a number of opportunities which we now withhold. If we could improve our trade with Chile and the Argentine Republic, we should in all probability strengthen our influence in a part of South America where just now it is far from strong. Indeed, the easiest way to uphold the imperative requirements of the Monroe Doctrine would be for us to open our doors to South American trade, so that the people of that continent could find in the United States the best possible market for their various products. In this way we should bind them to us by the chains of mutual interest, and would effectively prevent any European Government from undermining our influence by diplomatic intrigue or by trade concessions."

And it seems to the Philadelphia Ledger that a higher grade of commercial and diplomatic representatives would also be worth while. To quote:

"The Germans have the capacity for taking infinite pains in accomplishing an object, and give attention to details which, it is feared, Americans are prone to neglect or to regard lightly. They have studied their markets carefully, and have sent as agents to sell goods trained men, who know the language, customs, and even regard the prejudices and whims of the people with whom they wish to deal. The question also has its political side. Germany is establishing intimate commercial relations with South America. She is buying and selling goods, founding banks, steamship lines, and strong commercial ties. In every port there is an influential German element of high standing in the community and a consul who represents the highest standard of business methods. In the same ports the interests of the manufacturers and merchants of the United States are represented

by consuls chosen wholly and solely for political or partizan reasons. They are not men who have been distinguished for superior business acquirements but for superior pernicious political activity. The colonists already settled will be reinforced by their compatriots, and Germany's interests and her legitimate influence will increase rapidly. If this Government is committed to the policy that the United States must continue to exert a predominant influence and authority on this continent, the modification of the Dingley features of the present tariff will become a sheer necessity. Progressive men in the Republican Party are beginning to recognize the fact that trade means exchange of products. An attempt to ignore this plain truth will mean losses which drastic measures can not repair."

The Americanization of Mexico.-According to recent reports, Mexico is gradually becoming Americanized. American capitalists are investing large sums of money in Mexican mines, railroads, factories, and steamship lines, while American business methods and machinery are steadily coming into use in that country. Says the Philadelphia Bulletin:

"It is strange that Mexico was not largely Americanized long ago. Here is a country which stands in the very front rank in the matter of mineral resources. In her soil can be found in abundance silver, gold, copper, iron, coal, and, indeed, practically every desirable mineral that can be found in the United States. Mexico has a population of about 13,000,000, more than that of the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Porto Rico, and Cuba combined; her political institutions are, nominally at least, much like our own; person and property are reasonably secure within her borders and her people are steadily increasing in intelligence. "Yet this inviting field, which lies at our very doors, was almost completely neglected for years. We have been of late expending a vast amount of money in the hope of tranquillizing and developing a group of islands, with a semi-civilized population, on the other side of the globe. Mexican exports and imports amount to as much in one year as the exports and imports of the Philippines do in seven.

"It is gratifying to note that there is now a disposition on this side of the border to make up for this neglect. The more American capital there is invested in Mexico the closer the two republics will be drawn together. Whether this may result ultimately in political annexation is a problem for the future to solve, but it can hardly fail to make for the prosperity and advancement of both nations."

TOPICS IN BRIEF.

IT is already apparent that King Edward's coronation will be the greatest society success of the season.The Philadelphia Ledger.

COLOMBIA feels able to maintain order on the isthmus-that is, the kind of order they are used to down there. The Chicago News.

PENNSYLVANIA can appreciate the trouble the Sultan of Turkey has had with France. It was all about quays. -The Buffalo Express.

THE choice of a leader for 1904 probably does not agitate Mr. Bryan nearly so strongly as the question of followers.-The Washington Star.

THINGS have come to a pretty pass if the Sultan of Turkey is to be called to account every time any body catches him in a lie.-The Chicago News.

CONSIDERING the fact that "Historian" Maclay's wage is $2.48 per day, the public is inclined to wonder what the extra $2.18 is for.-The Com

moner.

IF the Southerners keep on lynching at the present rate they maynot find it necessary to amend their state constitutions.-The Salt Lake Herald.

LETTERS AND ART.

ARE PUBLISHERS' "READERS" MOSTLY

"A

INCOMPETENT?

UTHORS there be," says some one in the Contributors' Club (Atlantic Monthly, September), "who might lightly speak of the 'acceptance of a first contribution,' but many more whose unhappy experience would compel them to transpose the words, and say the 'first acceptance of a contribution.'" An anonymous writer in The World's Work (September) relates there an experience of his own with publishers and their readers, of how he waited long to use even the transposed form of words. He describes himself as "an unknown author who has written his first book, now published and on sale. His article is in answer to one printed last April in the same magazine in which it was said that "every manuscript submitted is given a chance." His book, he says was slowly written during a period of five years, was revised seven times, and several hundred dollars were、 spent for drawings from an artist in Europe. Eight duplicates of the manuscript were simultaneously placed in the hands of eight publishing houses for preliminary approval or rejection, a mutually satisfactory contract to be hoped for later. Thirtytwo publishers "examined" the manuscript in two years. All refused to publish it.

Seventeen of these were located in New York; the others in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis. Six returned the story with the specific statement that it had not been examined. Five others added that it had not been examined because "it is of a kind we do not publish."

Six rejected the story because it had failed of approval by each of four readers. Four rejected it "because its writer would not furnish them money to cover cost of publication, and then give them nearly all money receipts from sales of the book"! Two of these four seemed hurt that what they called a "reasonable" suggestion was rejected by the "unknown writer." Four rejected the story because the writer refused to buy enough copies of the book when printed to cover their statement of cost of publication, and seven rejected the story for the reason explicitly stated that its author was unknown, so the book would be "an uncertain commercial venture, in spite of any merit it might have."

The writer has several caustic things to say of publishers' "readers." For instance:

"A prominent publisher (not one in New York) told me that as not one manuscript in a hundred was accepted, he could not afford to pay a really competent judge to wade through the mass of chaff to get the single kernel; therefore he was obliged to rely largely on his typewriter girls as first judges of stories. He added that it was too bad to have to give up fifty cents or a dollar to the girl for her verdict that the story was unavailable."

About six hundred lines of rimes were in the story, carefully revised “by a thorough expert on poetical composition." A Boston woman called on the author and said she had acted as a a reader of the story for a Boston publisher, and wanted to revise the rimes in it for pay. The following is an extract from her alleged "written opinion" as given to the publisher: "The poems in it are without rhythm. In forming the trochees, cesura, anapest, and iambus seem to be unknown to the writer. Euphony and alliteration are neglected. One of the poems should have each stanza close with an Alexandrine. In short, the verse is not acatelectic." Various contradictory opinions are cited from the reports of the different readers.

Having met with all this discouragement, the "unknown author" finally gave a duplicate of his story to each of two writers of national reputation, saying to them:

manuscript, and writing an opinion of it. Be sure to condemn it if you must, for then I wish to suppress the book and escape ridicule. I rely on you to protect me. But if you approve, you must write and sign an opinion accordingly, and give me full authority to say to any publisher that you stand by what you have said in praise.'

"Both these experts praised the story. One declared it was 'very charming'; the other said it would 'take a high place among books of its kind.'

"Armed with these letters, I invaded the offices of a prominent publisher whose readers had already condemned the story, and said that I was not prepared to listen with much patience to opinions by his readers, when I held two written opinions by acknowledged writers and scholars that the story was meritorious. The long quest for a publisher ended-the adverse decision was reversed, a very favorable contract was signed—the book is on sale."

The writer's conclusion is as follows:

"My prayer is that very few copies will be purchased, but that after some years its sales will become larger; otherwise I shall know the book is unworthy."

Mo

ENGLISH AS SPOKEN IN ENGLAND.

OST people are aware of the fact that the English language as spoken in the United States and the same language as spoken in England have many points of dissimilarity; but many American globe-trotters even will be surprised to see how varied are the terms employed in the two countries for the common affairs of life when these variations are gathered together in brief compass, as is done by Julian Ralph in Harper's Magazine (August). For instance:

"If you ask a guest at your home in England whether he likes his meat rare, he asks what you said, because he does not understand you. He calls meat underdone when it is not thoroughly cooked. If you tell him you fear the asparagus is canned, he is at a loss again, because he would have said it was tinned. To ask him to pass the powdered sugar will again set him to wondering, for he calls it icing sugar, generally, tho he knows that it is sometimes called caster or sifted sugar. And if you have candy on the table you may not call it so without betraying your foreign origin, for he calls candy 'sweets,' abbreviated from 'sweetmeats,' and used to designate all preserves, puddings, pies, candies, and jams.

"To go farther along the eccentricities of English at the diningtable, most persons know, I suppose, that the beet is called beetroot, cornstarch is corn flour, corned beef (or a particular cut of it) is called 'silversides of beef,' and napkins are serviettes. "If in a shop I say, 'I want a paper of pins,' the clerk says, "Thank you. A great many Americans in London, now, aren't there?' 'Oh yes,' I say; 'I meant a packet of pins.' To ask for a spool of cotton is to set a clerk to staring at you, and to speak of a baby-carriage is to speak of the unknown, because spools of cotton or silk are called reels, and baby-carriages are known as perambulators-shortened to 'prams' in the speech of millions."

Mr. Ralph conducts us on a shopping tour in London that we may listen to the strange language of the shop and store-a store being always a department-store in England. He writes:

"Now when the American reader knows that a whisk, or eggwhisk, is an egg-beater, a coal-scoop is a coal-scuttle, a face-cloth is a wash-rag, footholds are small thin rubbers, a body is slang for bodice (just as the slang of the shops and masses makes chemise into 'shim '); when he learns that the roughs' are chapped hands, a block of paper is a pad, a camisole is a corsetcover, a preserver is a dress-shield, knickers are knickerbockers, or drawers, in Americanese-then he will get a great deal of light on what this very foreign-speaking, foreign-thinking lady has been doing. She washes her hands and face by the aid of a jug and basin, because she never heard those utensils called a washbowl and pitcher. With some of the English the word pitcher only describes little jugs, but none of the servants I have at present ever heard the word pitcher used at all. As for a bowl,