'that is not provided for by law is robbery of the people pure and simple, for the reason that the whole intention of such an issue is to give the owners of gold a safe investment for their hoards. Under the so-called 'popular' loan every dollar of bonds would either be taken up by the banks or by men who are hoarding gold in the hope of disposing of it at a profit. There would be no 'popular' loan in the ordinary meaning of that term."- The Constitution (Dem.); Atlanta, Ga.

A Limit to the Draining Process.-"Altho the proceeds of loan after loan have been drained out of the Treasury, it does not at all follow that this process will continue without limit. Those drains have been due in part to the deficiency of revenue, and in part to the redundancy of the currency, as well as to want of confidence in our monetary system. The deficiency of revenue is now too slight to be worth much notice, and the redundancy of the currency has been steadily diminished by these successive loans. It is reasonable to suppose that another loan of $100,000,000 will reduce the currency to such dimensions as to insure against any considerable flow of greenbacks from the people to the Treasury. There is no occasion, fortunately, at the present moment, for emergency tactics, and the Government does well to give the experiment of competitive bids a fair trial, reserving, we trust, the opportunity to combine with it the more immediately effective method of contract with a strong financial combination, should the course of events require it."-The News (Dem.), Baltimore. Increasing the Public Debt.-"It matters very little to the American people whether a sale of bonds nets a few millions more or less. The thing to take into consideration is the fact that with a balance of nearly $175,000,000 in the Treasury the President deliberately authorizes the creation of another $100,000,000 of indebtedness for a period of thirty years. Between the date of their emission and their final redemption these bonds will call for the payment of $120,000,000 in interest, or $20,000,000 more than the amount borrowed. And for what purpose are these bonds sold? To maintain a gold reserve for the redemption of United States currency-an impossible feat under existing circumstances. The futility of such attempts has already been exhibited. It has been shown that the gold, as rapidly as accumulated, will be drawn out of the Treasury so long as it is needed for export purposes. It is likely to be needed in the near future unless the balance of trade turns in our favor, and that is not to be expected while Cleveland is President."-The Chronicle (Rep.), San Francisco.

No Necessity for an Issue of Bonds.-"There is no necessity for another issue of bonds at this time either to maintain the redemption reserve or to make good a deficit in the Treasury. The redemption reserve can be kept intact at its present figure without any fear of further depletion by simply enforcing the existing law which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to use either silver or gold, at his own discretion, for the redemption of legaltender notes, and any possible future deficits in the Treasury can be prevented by the enactment of the pending tariff law, which will add $40,000,000 a year to the revenue of the Government.". The Republican (Rep.) Denver, Colo.

"Patriotism, self-interest, and the large and effusive joy of triumph over selfish combinations have been strongly appealed to in order to compass the end sought by the advocates of a per

petual divorce between bond syndicates and the Federal Treasury. These considerations may yet prove sufficiently potent to win the way to success of those who zealously urge them upon the people. If they should fail, they would at least have demonstrated that the hoarded gold of the people is a myth, and that an absolute corner exists in the world's supply of the metal. Such knowledge would be

of great value and advantage to the people, even if dearly bought."- The News (Ind.), Newark, N. J.

'The presentation of a silver-coinage bill by the finance committee of the Senate, as a substitute for the bond bill, is not going to make the holders of gold any more eager to part with it. It proves, however, that the Administration is right in not postponing action longer, and if Congress shall succeed in adding to the difficulties of the executive and increasing the cost of maintaining the national credit, it should not be difficult for the country to understand where the responsibility should rest."- The Times, (Ind.), Philadelphia.

"It has absolutely none of the elements of a popular loan. A popular loan can not be made by sealed proposals, which are subject to rejection. The people in such a competition necessarily have no show whatever. The banks and bankers are the beneficiaries, and in this particular instance the bankers, or, rather, the syndicate, will dictate the terms to the banks, if, indeed, the latter are allowed to pick up any crumbs from around the table." -The American (Rep.), Baltimore.

"Of course, no one can object to putting this country on a war footing, with England, Germany, and the Dutch South Africans donning war-paint. Such objections would be 'unpatriotic,' doncher know. And no 'honest-money' man can seriously object to issuing bonds to keep up the gold reserve. It would injure the 'credit of the Government," doncher know. . . . It's a 'popular' loan, don't you see? Anybody, especially the dear 'people,' can go down into their old stockings or tin cans hid away in old closets for fear the banks would break, fish out anywhere from fifty dollars to a million in gold, and 'come to the rescue of the country' with timely aid."-The Sentinel (Pop.), Chicago.

Torrens Land System in Danger in Illinois.There seems to be a general belief in Illinois that the Supreme Court will, on the first test case, decide the new land transfer system, adopted by Cook County on a referendum at the last election, to be inconsistent with certain clauses in the Constitution relating to judicial powers. The system has encountered a number of serious obstacles, and has been put in operation on a very limited scale. The essential feature of the system is the guaranteeing of the title by the county in consideration of a registration fee, and the transfer of land by record of title. The Illinois law is a modification of the Torrens system as it exists in Australia. The first registration does not give absolute title, but at the end of five years, if no adverse claims are filed, the title becoines absolute and is guaranteed by the State. In Massachusetts the system was discussed some years ago, but it failed of adoption. The Illinois experiment is being watched with interest in many States. The Harvard Law Review (January) writes on the subject: "Altho several States have at different times appointed commissioners to investigate the so-called 'Torrens' land transfer system, that is, a system of transfer of land by record of title, it is now for the first time to be given a trial in this country. The merits and demerits of the system have been pretty well threshed out, and the consensus of opinion is strongly in its favor as an original question. As a powerful plea, however, against introducing it, it is urged that the conditions that have secured its success in a new country like Australia are lacking here; chiefly because the land, in our older States at least, is not under Government ownership, which would permit the Government to inaugurate without inconvenience such a system of transfer, but is parceled out among a multitude of private landholders; and it is repugnant to them, long accustomed to our system of deed registration, to risk their land titles by a radical change in the methods of transfer. A demonstration, however, by actual test, that the transfer by record of title is capable of successfully supplanting our present methods will go a long way toward answering these conservative objections. The success of the Illinois experiment therefore probably insures like action in other States. In this lies its importance. It may be questioned, however,

if the act in its failure to make registration compulsory does not stop short of effecting the best results. The option given to landholders to transfer by deed as heretofore, or by record of title, is in effect the establishment of a dual system of transfer. Such a system was emphatically pronounced 'unworkable' by an English commission in 1868. Even tho the dual system be not unworkable, compulsory registration of title possess marked advantages. It certainly hastens the time when all land titles shall be conclusively evidenced by registration. Information as to the working of the Illinois act will be eagerly awaited.'

open issue is the international position of the Transvaal. England insists that the foreign agreements (not relations) of the South African Republic shall be subject to her control. The Kaiser asserts its complete independence. England can bring overwhelming force directly to bear on the Transvaal. Germany can protect the Transvaal only by sending troops by sea, and the sea is under complete English control. By the side of England's sea forces the German navy is a trifle. In addition, the Transvaal can be reached by a German force only by crossing Portuguese territory, and this is another point at which Germany is at a disadvantage in attempting to act. . . . It is more likely that England will make the Kaiser's words of no account than that the English Ministry will make these words the cause of war. War between these nations is possible in one contingency, and only one-an alliance between Germany and Russia. This is possible. It is not probable.”—The Press, Philadelphia.

through Puerto Principe, Santa Clara, and Matanzas into Havana, the last but one of the eastern provinces. The progress of the insurgents has been by a series of raids inland, avoiding open conflict with Spanish troops, which have been concentrated in the garrisoned city of Havana, around which the decisive struggle must be made. Recent advances of the insurgents within a few miles of Havana have renewed the demand of a large number of American newspapers for Government recognition of the belligerents.

Distinction between Recognizing Belligerent Rights and Independence.-"There is a distinction not generally understood between the recognition of a revolted community as having belligerent rights, and the according to such community recognition as an independent state. The right of a body of subjects rebelling against the lawfully constituted government to which they owe allegiance to claim recognition as belligerents arises very much sooner than their right to recognition as a separate and independent state. In the latter case it has never been customary to recognize insurgents as a separate state until the time has arrived when they have practically overcome the opposition of the parent state, and have constituted themselves into a separate and distinct nation with an effective government firmly estab

An English Explosion of Jingoism.-"England is simply bringing upon herself the condemnation of the civilized world by her explosion of jingoism over the Transvaal affair, which is more violent, blustering, and offensive than the anti-English jingoism in the United States when it was at fever heat on the Venezuela issue. The German Emperor had a perfect right to congratulate President Krüger on the success and bravery of the Boers in defending their country and maintaining its independ-lished. For example, Great Britain did not recognize the Spanence against a daredevil invasion aimed at their national existence. Simply on account of this timely and perfectly proper expression of approbation the English press has heaped upon the Emperor an amount of personal abuse which is unprecedented and is as violent as it is unjustifiable. This is not the first time English public opinion has run amuck. It has already done so twice with Russia. If this sort of thing becomes chronic England may find herself some day shunned by all the nations of Europe and America, who may feel justified in forming a sort of holy alliance against her selfish, egotistical bombast, so well exemplified in the present frenzied attacks of the London press on Emperor William."-The Herald, New York.

Reasons for British Wrath.-"It was Bismarck who practically ordered the interference of Great Britain in Egypt, and German influence was paramount in determining the status of British influence in the Nile valley. It was Bismarck, also, who forbade the ratification of the Kongo treaty by which Great Britain and Portugal fixed up matters so that the control over the navigation of the lower reaches of that river should be in the hands nominally of Portugal, but really of both powers; and it was Bismarck who also snubbed Great Britain by calling the West African conference of 1884, in agreement with France, without consulting the British Government or giving it notice of his intention. With the same ignoring of Great Britain the German colonial policy in Africa was formed and put in operation, and before John Bull had really made up his mind what Bismarck was about, the latter had taken possession of a stretch of country above the Orange River on the west coast which had long been regarded as good as annexed to the Cape Colony. Without going further into detail at this time, it is plain that there is a considerable background and foundation to the outpouring of British wrath at Emperor William's interference in the Transvaal affair.”—The Republican, Springfield, Mass.

[English press comments on the South African situation made prior to Dr. Jameson's raid will be found in the Foreign Department of this issue of THE LITERARY DIGEST.-ED.]

ish republics of South America as independent states until they
had driven out the Spaniards from all parts of South America,
except an island on the coast of Chile and a small section of
upper Peru.
On the other hand, Great Britain accorded to the
Southern States recognition as belligerents within the first month
after the commencement of the Civil War."-" D.," in the Ameri-
can Law Register, December.

The Wrongs Against Which Cubans Fight.-"What are the
wrongs against which the Cubans are fighting? They may be
summed up thus: They have no voice or control in the govern-
ment of their country. They have no real representation in the
Spanish Cortes. They have not the right of public meeting.
They are taxed to a degree resulting in confiscation of property.
They get no returns from the excessive taxation. They have no
proper system of public education. The Captain-General has
absolute power.
There is perpetual robbery and corruption by
the officials running through all the departments of the Govern-
ment. The courts of justice are dens of iniquity. The fiscal
policy is oppressive and ruinous. Cuba is held by Spain only for
mercenary purposes. There is no consideration of progress, lib-
erty, or justice. The events of the last few days have brought
appreciably nearer the day when European despots shall be sent
bag and baggage off this hemisphere."-The Times, Leaven-
worth, Kans.

Spaniards Steadily Losing Ground. "The war has been in progress less than a year. General Campos has 100,000 veteran troops at his command, with a nation of 17,000,000 at his back. The rebel army numbers about 10,000, with about half a million to draw upon. The total population of Cuba is only 1,600,000, . half being in garrisoned cities under Spanish guard, and not more than one third of the population can be reckoned as actively in revolt. The Spanish have, therefore, 100,000 soldiers to suppress the revolt of 500,000 or 600,000 men, women, and children; as many soldiers, that is, as there are men in the whole insurgent population, combatant or non-combatant, and ten times as many as the actual rebel army. Yet they have been steadily losing ground.

In such a state of affairs it is worse than idle for Spain to keep up the pretense that there is no war in Cuba, but merely some desultory rioting. There is war, civil war, fully as much as there was in this country thirty odd years ago, the ex

CAMPOS ENTICING THE CUBAN REBELS INTO
AMBUSH.

-The Evening News, Detroit,

"Following down the column of native increase [Mr. Fisher writes] we find that from 1750 the rate remains at a little over 33 per cent. for twenty years, until reduced by the Revolution to 28.81. But after the Revolution it returns again to 33.33 in the next decade, then rises to 34. 14, and then to 34.79. In the next decade, 1810 to 1820, it falls suddenly about one per cent., and in the next falls one per cent. again; and in the next, which is 1830 to 1840, falls more than two per cent. to 30.64, which is much lower than it had been at any time in the previous eighty years, except during the decade which contained the Revolution. The falling continues, with one or two slight revivals, as we follow the col

1

A

THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN CANADA. SERIOUS political crisis in Canada is marked by the resignation of seven ministers from the Cabinet of Premier Mackenzie Bowell (Conservative) upon the assembling of the Dominion Parliament this month to consider the subject of separate schools. In accordance with a decision of the Privy Council of England the Dominion Government had ordered the provincial Government of Manitoba to provide for separate schools for Roman Catholics in spite of provincial legislation to the contrary. Premier Greenway, of Manitoba, refused, and wrote a letter to Lord Aberdeen, Governor-General of Canada, protesting against such a Government order without investigation and declaring that Manitoba would resist coercion to the bitter end. He dissolved the legislature and has gone before the province on the school issue, expecting that the election, January 15, will give him stronger support than 28 out of 40 members whom he had with him in the body dissolved.

The Dominion Parliament was assembled in special session by Premier Bowell, who had pledged at the last session the enactment of remedial legislation for the Catholic minority, but before anything could be done his Cabinet broke down. The seven ministers who resigned were: Mr. Foster, Minister of Finance; Mr. Ives, Minister of Trade and Commerce; Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, Minister of Justice; Mr. Haggart, Minister of Railways; Mr. Dickey, Minister of Militia; Dr. Montague, Minister of Agriculture; Mr. Wood, Controller of Customs-all said to be Protestants. Five ministers remain, and attempts at a reconstruction of the Cabinet are being made.

Canadian journals have given considerable prominence to a personal quarrel between Sir Adolphe Caron, postmaster-general, and Dr. Montague, as an immediate cause for the downfall of the Cabinet. Sir Adolphe-Caron charged Dr. Montague with writing anonymous letters containing allegations that Caron accepted money to facilitate the passage of legislation.

Whatever the immediate cause, the situation at Ottawa is generally regarded as of the gravest possible character. The Toronto Globe (Liberal) says:

"The collapse was inevitable, the policy of the party is thoroughly discredited. There was very little to hold the Ministry together except the common desire to retain power and keep out the 'Grits,' and this bond was not strong enough to stand the strain of a keen controversy on such a question as Federal intervention in Manitoba or a personal quarrel between ministers, or such overwhelming defeats as the party has recently suffered in Ontario and Quebec.".

The Toronto World (Ind.) says:

"The political crisis at Ottawa is, perhaps, the most serious one in the history of Canada. It has occurred at a critical period in the country's history. But it does not mean that the Conservative Party is going to pieces, or that it is about to give up the high duty of governing Canada."

The Montreal Daily Witness (Ind.) says of the Ministers who resigned:

"The government of the country has been brought to a standstill and thrown into confusion by the warring of different factions of the Conservative Party, and while the country is exercising extreme patience in order to give the Conservative Premier every opportunity of downing the traitors in his camp and restoring the Government, his organs and those of the traitors give all the time they can spare from the struggle to abuse of the Liberals, who have been, as they can well afford to be under the circumstances, very lenient and even magnanimous in their course toward all the Conservative cliques excepting only the seven traitorous Ministers, whose conduct is condemned by every right-thinking person in the Dominion."

The Ottawa Free Press (Liberal) says:

"They have not succeeded in overthrowing the Minister against whom they conspired, but they have fired the torch of race and

religion at a moment when the utmost conciliation and cautious action is demanded. This can hardly be a pleasant reflection for the 'bolters.

We quote a number of American journals on the school question and the crisis that has grown out of it:

The History of the Controversy.-"The roots of this question run back to a time long anterior to confederation. Catholic minorities in British-settled provinces, as well as the Roman Catholic majority of Quebec, have always vigorously asserted the right of national recognition of separate schools. It was a subject of great difficulty at the time of confederation, and it is doubtful whether the Dominion could have been formed without the compromise, made necessary by the demands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. As a result, special provisions were inserted in the British North America act, qualifying the right of the provinces to make laws regarding education, in the following manner: 'Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.'

"Three year later the Province of Manitoba was constituted and admitted into the confederation, and the act by which this was effected also had a provision of the same kind. Under this act the Roman Catholics of Manitoba acquired the right of support from the public funds for their separate schools so long as the province chose to do so. The province was supposed to have assumed the obligations of the agreement by which Roman Catholic schools were aided by the Dominion before the Province of Manitoba was carved out of the Northwest Territories; but, as is strongly contended, those obligations were not to be perpetual. After twenty years of this state of educational affairs, the Manitoba government resolved to establish a system of unsectarian popular education. The Public Schools Act of 1890 was passed, doing away with Government support of separate schools. Then began the litigation. . . . All the judicial proceedings, constituting a series ascending from the first decision in Manitoba to the final one by the Privy Council in the present year [1895] is that the determination of the question whether Manitoba shall have an unsectarian school system or not rests in the first place with the Dominion Cabinet, and failing this, with the Dominion Parliament. . . . The last decision of the Privy Council is, in effect, a decision which does not decide, because it throws the burden of settlement upon the Dominion Executive. .

"The Privy Council has given two decisions-one in 1892 and the other in 1895. The first upheld the right of Manitoba to legislate separate schools out of existence, so far as the application of public funds to their support is concerned; the second affirms that a case for a grievance has been made out under the provisions of the act above referred to, but leaves to the Dominion Government the application of the remedy therein indicated. How the two decisions can be reconciled it is somewhat difficult to see, as the latter seems to recognize an injustice done by an act which it has already declared valid."-Special Correspondence from Ottawa to The Tribune, New York.

Possibilities of Disrupting the Dominion.-"It is not exaggerating the critical nature of the political situation in Canada to say that it contains the possibilities of a disruption of the great Dominion and a resumption of the provincial form of government.

man.

Sir Mackenzie [Bowell] is an example of the strength of mediocrity. He succeeded Sir John Thompson, as the latter had succeeded the great Sir John Macdonald, because he was a safe Being weak, he had made few enemies, and so was chosen in preference to the able Sir Charles Tupper, Sr., now High Commissioner of Canada at London. Sir Mackenzie's amiable faults have served him in evil stead. He has not been able to hold his forces together. The remedial legislation he proposed was unpopular on every side, both Protestants and Roman Catholics repudiating it. With a majority of 47 in Parliament as Premier, he so weakened the Conservative Party that its strongest men turned to Sir Charles, and hence the revolt, intended to drive Sir Mackenzie from office. . . . Sir Charles Tupper is a shrewd He sees the division of the party. It is possible that he will allow the Liberals to assume power and meet the perplexing Manitoba problem, on which they are bound to fall, and then go into office himself. As the Liberals have been in opposition since 1878, they are ill-prepared to do well in office.

man.

"The difficulties of the situation are great. On the one side