Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

East were not hostile to those of Great Britain and her inevitable ally, Japan, but in many points identical with theirs. They saw that the cause of England and of Japan as against Russia was the cause of civilization, and they bravely said so-bravely, because it must have taken some courage to reverse the opinions they had lately been expressing on the conduct of Great Britain in Venezuela. England, after all, is England, whether in British Guiana or in the China Seas. Her policy is directed by the same ideas and the same men. And blood is thicker than water, and our kin beyond the sea are closer to us than any Tartars or Romanoffs can ever be. So far as the relations of England and the United States are concerned nothing but good has come of this last incident."— The Herald (Ind.), New York.

England Not a Good Neighbor.—“Great Britain is the power of all others with which the United States ought to be on the closest terms of friendship, and apparently there is a good deal of English sentiment in favor of enduring peace, and even of an alliance, between these two English-speaking powers. In its issue of October 12, the London Spectator said: 'We have sometimes thought, indeed, that the Monroe doctrine might be used as one of the stones upon which to build up that AngloSaxon alliance which will some day give the control of the world to the English-speaking peoples.' Whatever may be the foundation for it, the dream of an alliance for peace is a happy one, and one in which men who are truly civilized love to indulge, for such an alliance would mean that war would cease while it endured. But neither the Monroe doctrine nor any other doctrine or theory of international rights and duties will furnish the occasion for that alliance so long as England gives cause of complaint to the people of this country. Desiring peace and hating jingoism as we do, we are bound to say that Great Britain is not a good neighbor on this continent, and is not winning the affection or the respect of the people of the United States.

"The British Government seems to consider itself obliged to assume the cause of every land-grabbing adventurer who appeals to his British citizenship against the people or the country that he has robbed, or whose sheep-pastures or gold-mines excite his cupidity. Therefore rational men who do not insist that the Monroe doctrine means that the United States shall exercise a protectorate over every American republic, but who know what the Monroe doctrine was when it was promulgated, who do not believe in war, who are not jingoes, who venerate England for what she has been, and who believe in her for what she may besuch men do not like to see her taking more territory on this hemisphere at the behest of her subjects who are seeking fortunes in the gold-fields of Venezuela. They may realize that the United States Government has little cause for aggressive interference, but they do not think that America will be made more peaceful and harmonious by the strengthening of another British colony, responsible to none of its neighbors, but defended by the British navy, however insolent or hostile it may be to them. Nor does land-grabbing or the bullying of a weaker power increase their respect for the Government which next to their own they would like to respect most highly."- Harper's Weekly (Ind.), New York.

The Conditions of the Desired Solidarity.-"How often must it be said that Great Britain and the United States have everything to gain by maintaining relations of the friendliest character? Everything argues for 'solidarity' of race. Nations having a common language and a common origin should be bound together by hooks of steel, and acts on either side tending to drive the two great branches of the race still farther apart are monstrous crimes against civilization. We have no precedent in history for the situation that now confronts the English-speaking world. What race have we knowledge of which, split into great and powerful self-governing halves, has occupied these relative positions? The problem of advancing the standards of the race as a whole, without plunging it into continuous self-destructive fratricidal conflicts, must, therefore, be solved without such guidance as history frequently affords. We are more or less in the dark as to the future, yet that the instinct of solidarity, which is planted deep in the breasts of the English-speaking peoples, is the true guide for the statesmen of both nations is too evident for dispute

among sane men.

"Now, if the English people desire to maintain genuinely amicable relations with the people of the United States they ought to squarely face this fact: Americans are transplanted Englishmen,

and have inherited the grim old English passion for power and wealth. Here is the Western Hemisphere on which we are the dominating nation. Is it to be expected that the American people would view with complacency any manifestation at this late day of that policy in the New World which is now carving up Africa and which in Asia is undeniably forcing the Chinese nation to a struggle for existence? Our people may be too sensitive and jealous, but they can not be expected as human beings to rest easy under any exemplification, in however mild a form, of the 'carving-up' process of civilization in this hemisphere. Don't claim the earth, brother; let's arbitrate and be square in a broad and honorable sense. Then will the race move on to its great and glorious destiny.”—The_Republican (Ind.), Springfield.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"The people of the United States are not prepared to abrogate their national dignity by entering into any such international partnership. In such an arrangement the United States has everything to lose and Great Britain everything to gain. It would be an actual abandonment of the position which the United States holds in the Western world and which she is fully capable of maintaining—a fact of which Great Britain is well aware, and out of which she would be glad to cheat us by the arts of her diplomats."―The News (Ind.), Denver.

"Nothing can exceed the audacious impudence of Great Britain in seeking, much less claiming, the alliance of the United States against Russia, the one foreign power which has exhibited an undeviating policy of friendship toward this Government throughout its whole history and in seasons of dire portent and direct peril. We have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's Eastern policy. If that policy is adverse or antagonistic to the ambitious aggressiveness of Great Britain, it has in this fact the greater claim to our sympathy and favorable consideration. It is the established policy of this Government to refrain from any interference with European affairs. If, however, we were to interfere, it would certainly not be to oppose the nation which has been faithful to our interest against the combined forces of domestic treason and foreign intrigue and conspiracy."-The Mail and Express (Rep), New York.

"Mr. Chandler speaks with a measure of authority. He has been Secretary of the Navy. He is on the Naval Committee. When he says war he means war. The more's the pity. . . . If any member of the British Parliament of a standing, prominence, and influence equal to Mr. Chandler's in Congress were to declare that war with the United States is inevitable and to be welcomed, we should resent and repel it. Why should a Senator of the United States be looser in speech?"- The Press (Rep.), Philadelphia.

"We have no fears that there ever will be another war between Great Britain and the United States, and we read all predictions of such a war with a feeling of total incredulity. England can not afford to go to war with the United States, nor can the United States afford to go to war with England. Of course, then, we read in the papers of yesterday without misapprehension what Senator William E. Chandler, of New Hampshire, had said on this subject. Indeed, if we had been inclined to regard him as a war prophet the upshot of his predictions would have convinced us that there was nothing in them; for, after saying that war between the United States and England was inevitable, and even going so far as to tell what would be the cause of it, he hides himself and his predictions by saying that as a war offensive on our part, it may not happen for twenty years! Good gracious! That is a prediction at long range. It is the old Mohammedan cry, 'In the name of the prophet-figs. ""-The Dispatch (Dem.), Richmond.

"To Senator Chandler's prediction that the United States will go to war with Great Britain, and that, of all nations it will choose Russia as an ally, the only answer necessary is that, if so, it will wait a few centuries until Russia becomes civilized, and until our commerce with the two nations ceases to be in the ratio of 781 to 8 in favor of Great Britain. Our combined imports and exports with Great Britain and its dependencies in 1893, for instance, amounted to over $781,000,000. Our combined imports and exports with Russia in the same year amounted to barely $8,000,000. With which country are we the more likely to go to war?”—The Journal (Rep.), Chicago.

།།

OUR DUTY IN THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS.

CONG

ONGRESS will doubtless be called upon by the logic of
events to deal with the Venezuela controversy and to define
the Monroe doctrine in the light of modern political and indus-
trial conditions. While it is generally believed that the "doc-
trine" will be emphatically reaffirmed, there are indications that
there will be considerable difference of opinion with regard to the
propriety of our interference in the Venezuela difficulty, as some
public men are understood to hold that England's demands in no
wise conflict with the essential principle laid down by President
Monroe. In The North American Review (November) two
Congressmen, Mr. Joseph Wheeler (Democrat), of Alabama, and
Gen. C. H. Grosvenor (Republican), of Ohio, express the view
that the Venezuela case undoubtedly comes within the scope of
the Monroe doctrine, and that it is the duty of the United States
to insist upon arbitration of the entire boundary dispute. Repre-
sentative Wheeler thus briefly states the facts of the case:
"Venezuela, originally a dependency of Spain, was acquired by
that nation by the right of discovery about the year 1499.
A year
later the Spanish explored the delta of the Orinoco, and in 1531
extended their explorations up that river to the mouth of the
Meta. This, by virtue of the rule laid down at that time and
always acquiesced in by European nations, gave Spain an un-
questioned title to this territory.

"Many years later the Dutch established a settlement east of
the Essequibo River, near the site of the present city of George-
town. By the treaty of Munster in 1648 it was stipulated that
Spain and Holland were to remain in possession of the territory
then 'in actual possession of each,' and sixty-five years later
Great Britain agreed to aid the Spaniards to recover their ancient
dominions in America, the treaty stating these to be the same as
in the time of Charles II.

"By the treaty of recognition by Spain the provinces were ceded by name to the new republic.

"England's title to Dutch Guiana was derived in 1814 from the United Netherlands, the treaty simply designating them as the colonies of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, but in none of the treaties are the geographical boundaries designated. It is therefore clear that the dividing line must be that which was recognized as the boundary between the Spanish and Dutch settlements at the time they existed as such. This is all Venezuela has ever demanded, and for England to contend for more than this would be an attempt to violate the Monroe doctrine by the extension of European colonies in America."

Should England decline to arbitrate, Mr. Wheeler says, "it will show conclusively" that she "has decided to dispute the right of the United States" to enforce the Monroe doctrine, and that she is determined to extend her possessions in America by force. Adverting to the more general question of our future policy under the Monroe doctrine, Mr. Wheeler says:

"So far from receding from the strictest construction of the
doctrine laid down by Monroe, my views are that the United
States should extend its policy and look to the establishment of
depots and naval stations around which American colonies would
locate, sufficiently strong to encourage and protect our trade and
commerce. England's suc-
cess in extending her trade
and commerce is largely due
to her first establishing col-
onies or footholds in coun-
tries the trade of which she
sought to secure. American
toil now produces substan-
tially 30 per cent, of the sta-
ple products of the world;
we have but four per cent.
of its population, and for-
eign trade has become an
essential outlet for American
products. The principle of
the Monroe doctrine did very
well in 1823.

THE LION WILL HAVE TO PROTECT HIS
TAIL SOMEHOW.

-The Inter Ocean, Chicago.

"President Polk advanced a step in 1848. We must take another step forward in 1895. I would deplore any action which would endanger our amicable relations with England, but we must realize that they are largely due to our allowing that nation a practical monopoly of the most valuable trade and commerce of the world, and Americans must understand that friction will certainly follow any material invasion of English markets by American products."

General Grosvenor criticizes the course of the Administration in the Nicaraguan dispute, and thinks it imperative to reaffirm the Monroe doctrine in terms as clear as were used at the time of the occupation of Mexican territory by Maximilian. We quote from his contribution as follows:

"The proposition of England, as recently announced by Sir Julian Pauncefote, that England will arbitrate the question of her right to territory which she admits she holds by doubtful tenure, but will refuse to arbitrate questions in regard to territory which she is pleased to say she holds by indisputable title, is a simple repudiation of all recognition of arbitration whatever, and it indicates the hypocrisy of the movement by which a member of the British Parliament paraded himself across the ocean and came to Congress in the last session with his arms full of petitions in favor of an international system of arbitration. We have lost standing among the nations of the earth by the course we have already taken, and in the failures already manifested, and we had infinitely better surrender all pretence of adherence to the Monroe doctrine and abandon the American Continent to the ravages of European aggression than to any longer pretend to uphold it and yet be guilty of the failures of the past two years.

"Our attitude should be that of unflinching and unfaltering devotion to the principles and practises of this Government hitherto, and in so doing we shall not bring war upon the United States; but we shall protect ourselves against war by securing respectful recognition of our national purpose by all the nations of the world.

[ocr errors]

"The attitude of the United States toward the Venezuelan question should be that of determined opposition to any movement of England, the result of which would impair or weaken our ancient declaration of support of the Monroe doctrine. Our construction of the scope of that doctrine should be proclaimed and adhered to. Once proclaimed, a faithful adherence to and recognition of our construction by the nations of the earth should be the conditions upon which alone friendly relations with us can be maintained."

Defeat of Woman-Suffrage in South Carolina.-The proposition to confer the suffrage on women endowed with certain educational and property qualifications, which had been made in the South Carolina constitutional convention and warmly advocated as the best possible solution of the problem of "negro domination," has been rejected by the decisive vote of 121 to 26. Senator Tillman, whose influence is very great, opposed the proposition. The Charleston News and Courier says that the action of the convention can not be regarded as an 66 accurate indication of popular sentiment in the South." Throughout the proceedings, it continues, "it has been made clearly apparent that the delegates have submitted in advance to the dictation of a few leading spirits who control the political machinery in the State. The program of negro disfranchisement is to be carried out under orders, and no fair and free discussion of the question of woman-suffrage could be tolerated under such circumstances.' Outside the State little surprise is expressed at the rejection of the proposition. The Philadelphia Telegraph says: "No one can accuse more than a very few of the women of South Carolina of harboring a desire to vote. The politics of the State might perhaps be improved if they did; but that is another question. They certainly do not want the suffrage, and it is also true that the men, at least beyond a very few, do not wish to take the risk of extending the electorate. It is true that the negroes of the South were enfranchised without consulting them about it. There was no thought of finding out whether the persons who were to be enfranchised really wished to vote or not, such as there is to-day, when woman-suffrage is seriously spoken of. the men of South Carolina will scarcely rise to the occasion as patriots and liberators, the promoters of a great moral idea, which must be promoted in spite of everything."

Yet

TWO SENSATIONAL MURDER TRIALS.

HOLME

OLMES and Durrant, two of the most extraordinary crimi. nals this country has produced, were convicted and sentenced to death last week. The Holmes trial, in Philadelphia, occupied a week, and was full of surprises and strange complications. The Durrant trial, in San Francisco, lasted several months, and resembled the Holmes case in more than one respect. Holmes is accused of many murders, but he was tried for the murder of one Pitezel, and no evidence except such as bore directly on this case was admitted against him. Durrant is accused of two murders, but he was tried for one, and will have to stand another trial on the second charge, it being the intention of the prosecuting officer to bring out the full measure of his guilt, owing to the protestations of innocence made by himself and his parents. Holmes made no defense and introduced no testimony; his counsel relied on the supposed weakness of the prosecution's case. The verdict is generally approved, altho some lawyers express doubt in the technical sufficiency of the evidence. produce editorials containing brief summaries of the two cases a id comments thereon.

We re

The Holmes Trial.-"The Holmes case will ever stand out in the criminal annals of our State as one of the most memorable of trials. We can recall no other trial for murder during the last half-century, in any section of the country, that approaches it in the strange complications which beset the vindication of justice, with the single exception of the case of Professor Webster, of Harvard, who was tried and executed some forty-five years ago for the murder of Dr. Parkman.

"Two vital points of the Commonwealth's case were admitted by the defense. First, the identity of the body as that of Pitezel was not disputed; and, second, it was admitted that Holmes was present at some time after the death of Pitezel and himself placed the body in a position of apparent repose. The motive of Holmes to murder Pitezel was of the strongest nature. They had been partners in crime, and Pitezel was given to dissipation and to talking thoughtlessly when under the influence of liquor. He was, therefore, a constant menace to Holmes in his general criminal operations, and in addition to these strong motives for the murder, he expected to profit, and did profit, to the extent of thousands of dollars from the money fraudulently obtained from the insurance company. The motive for the murder was thus

clearly presented.

"Next the Commonwealth proved Holmes's absence from his wife on the day the murder was committed; his perturbed condition when he returned to his room, and his hasty flight with his wife in an early night train. If the case of the Commonwealth had ended at this point, it would have been generally accepted that the chain of evidence was incomplete, but every movement and utterance of Holmes from the time he left Philadelphia immediately after the murder, were given to the court and jury with such precision as to defy dispute; and, taken as a whole, they presented, in connection with the other facts undisputed, a com. plete chain of testimony that defied any other interpretation than the guilt of the prisoner.

"The necessary separation of Mrs. Pitezel from her daughter Alice after Alice had identified the body of her father, was the foundation upon which the prosecution built an impregnable structure of testimony that brought the case clearly within the rules of the law, because the facts forbade every other hypothesis than that of deliberate murder. The case of the Commonwealth was thus made out in accord with the highest standard of circumstantial evidence, even with a most material part of the evidence of the Commonwealth excluded, and the conviction of Holmes is reasonably certain to stand the severest test of further judicial inquiry."-The Times, Philadelphia.

The Durrant Case.-"The bodies of two young women were found in the Emanuel Baptist Church, in San Francisco, in April last. They were both estimable, modest young ladies, members of the church and interested in church work.

Theodore Durrant,

a medical student, was also active in many departments of the same work, tho the real object of his interest seems to have been young women of the church rather than its spiritual concerns.

the

He was the wolf in the sheep-fold, but his real nature was so self

controlled and disguised that no one suspected his true character until Blanche Lamont disappeared on April 3. Durrant is the last man who was seen with her, but he denied all knowledge of her whereabouts and was assiduous in insinuating his suspicion that she had been lured into some evil resort, and that hers was but the familiar case of the young girl who drops out of the life that once knew her into the obscurity of a life of sin.

"This insult to the memory of his victim, whose nude body was even then lying stark and cold in the belfry of the church, where he had placed it, with what designs for its ultimate disposition is not known, directed suspicion toward Durrant himself, and when on April 13 the dead body of another young girl was found in Emanuel Church Durrant was arrested, the church belfry searched, Blanche Lamont's body discovered there, and Durrant put on trial for her murder. In the three months and a half through which the trial of this case has been stretched out no allusion has been made to the allied case of Minnie Williams, tho it is believed that the two girls who were killed in the same sanctuary at an interval of only ten days were murdered by the same person and from the same motive-brutal and ungovernable lust..

"His callousness during the trial is scarcely less marked than that of Holmes. His parents, however, still stand by him, while Holmes is to all appearances friendless. They are alike, however, in their insensibility, freedom from remorse, and great coolness and presence of mind when confronted with the evidence of their guilt. The doctrine of some theorists that all murderers are insane has this to support it: that cold-blooded murderers usually show a lack of moral sense, an incapacity to appreciate the heinousness of their crime, and tho they may shrink from and fear the gallows and suffer total collapse under a verdict of guilty, their self-conceit and love of notoriety sustain them while there is yet the possibility of acquittal, and even enable them to enjoy the trial in which they are the center of interest.

"While there may be some question of the entire responsibility of such men, there is no doubt that the good and safety of society require that they shall be hanged when their guilt is proved. Their death is necessary as a warning to and possible restraint upon less resolute perverts, and is the only certain way to limit their victims to those who fall before their cruel craft and murderous propensities are known."-The Press, Philadelphia.

A Popular Verdict. "The Holmes verdict is certainly a 'popular' one. There is but one opinion as to the man's guilt.

"The belief is universal that he killed Pitezel; that he killed the Pitezel children; that he is one of the most depraved criminals of an age that seems to be prolific in men dangerous to society's welfare; that had he the traditional nine lives of a cat his crimes would call for the forfeiture of them all were he to legally expiate his numerous infamous deeds.

"Nevertheless his conviction was by no means certain.

"The prosecution was singularly weak in direct evidence of the crime charged, and a brilliant defense by cunning lawyers might have made a stubborn and effective stand against the Commonwealth's purely circumstantial evidence.

"Justice has undoubtedly been done to this criminal, but his conviction is a double cause of congratulation when one considers, from a purely legal standpoint, the essential weakness of the Commonwealth's case owing to the kind of evidence on which the prosecution had to rely.”—The Herald, New York.

A Bad Time for Murderers.-"The convictions of Holmes and Durrant emphasize the fact that this a bad time for murderers. "Twenty years ago it was the boast of the criminal classes that 'hanging for murder is played out,' and the boast was justified. By an abuse of the plea of insanity and by virtue of a certain sentimentalism that then prevailed, the slayers of men were permitted to escape either with no punishment at all or with slighter terms of imprisonment than we give to comparatively minor offenders. There are men conspicuous to-day in politics or business who would have been executed for their homicides if their offenses had been committed within the last two or three years. "A great change for the better has occurred. The 'insanity' plea must now be supported by trustworthy medical testimony before a jury will accept it as an excuse for the apparently deliberate killing of a human being. The sentimentalism that formerly biased judgment is no longer dominant. Courts, juries, and the public have come to hold men of homicidal mind to a much more rigid accountability than they did twenty years ago, and the change is a great gain."—The World, New York.

TR

PROHIBITION AND THE CHRISTIAN

ENDEAVOR SOCIETY.

ROUBLE has been brewing for some time in the leading circles of the Christian Endeavor Society in connection with the question of the Society's proper attitude toward prohibition. Recently, John G. Woolley, a noted temperance and Christian Endeavor orator, has openly denounced the policy of Dr. Clark, the head of the Christian Endeavorers, and called upon the rank and file to repudiate it. Mr. Woolley brings several charges against Dr. Clark, but the most important of all seems to be that the latter has been advising Christian Endeavorers to preserve their party affiliations and try to reform the various parties from within along temperance and prohibition lines. Mr. Woolley insists that the Society is essentially a Prohibition society and "ready to march out of dirty politics." Dr. Clark's statement, made in a late speech, that Christian Endeavor is merely "an influence," is denounced by Mr. Woolley as a libel and insult uttered in fear of party politics. The controversy between these two leaders has been carried on in The Voice, the New York prohibition organ, but many religious and secular journals have reprinted the statements from The Voice and commented upon the issue presented. Expressing editorially its view of the matter, The Voice says:

JOHN G. WOOLLEY.

"Why should the church, or the pulpit, or a religious society be drawn, it is asked, into partizan politics? We answer that, ordinarily, it ought not to be. The tariff question and the currency question involve moral principles, as all questions concerning matters of justice and honesty must; yet no one is demanding that the Christian Endeavor societies, or the Y. M. C. associations, or the pulpit in general enter into a partizan contest for free trade or free silver, for protection or a gold basis. Why, then, should it be demanded that the pulpit and religious societies make a partizan fight for Prohibition? The question is a fair one and we think it can be fairly answered.

"If the church and the Christian Endeavorers had discerned and declared, over and over again, with the utmost emphasis, that a protective tariff, for instance, is contrary to the laws of God, subversive of morality, at war with religion, and a nurse of vice and corruption, then the logic of that utterance and the law of consistency would require that the churches and the societies give their positive support to the political party (or parties) openly making war upon protection. The church can not, without laying itself open to the charge of moral cowardice, take the one position, and refuse to take the other. Now, it has said no such thing concerning the tariff. It has made no declaration of that sort concerning the currency question. The church has not reached any conclusion as to the moral principles involved in those issues. But it has reached such a conclusion, and made such a declaration, on the subject of the liquor traffic. Most of the churches, and most of the church societies, have declared in the most emphatic and uncompromising language that the liquor traffic is a monster of iniquity, at war with God and man, with the church and the state and the home; and, having reached that

conclusion, consistency requires that they squarely and openly and vigorously support a party (or parties) that make determined war upon the liquor traffic. The church has either gone too far or not far enough. It should make no declaration on this subject, as it makes none on the currency question, or it should stand by the declaration it has made, no matter what betide. If there is doubt and uncertainty as to the immorality of the saloon, then the church should not have said what it has said. If there is no doubt about it, then the church is pledged to assist in the destruction of that immorality, and to stand by the political party that is striving to effect the destruction.

"The question to be decided between Woolley and Clark is not, Which is advocating the more politic and expedient course? but, On which side lies the path of absolute, undeviating loyalty to the truth of God?"

The press generally, and particularly the Republican newspapers, would seem to side with Dr. Clark. Mr. Woolley is represented by them as attempting to "turn Christian Endeavor into an annex to the Prohibition Party." We give some of these comments below:

"The stand taken by the society for Christian citizenship is a good one, but it will take the whole body of Endeavors into one political party only when all the goodness and honesty and patriotism is there consolidated. Men may be Christian citizens in the Republican or Democratic Party as truly as they can in the Prohibition or Populistic. If the party of the Christian citizen puts in nomination men or favors measures which that citizen does not believe in his protest as a member of the party is much more effective than it would be were he in opposition. The ends sought by the society can much better be reached if partizanship be left out of its workings."-The Express, Portland.

"The chief fact in the matter is simply this: In Mr. Woolley's Boston address were some sentences that Dr. Clark and Mr. Baer and Mr. Shaw all considered as partizan in their character and designed to advance the third party as an organization. To this part of the address they objected. They would have objected still more strenuously to a Republican, a Democratic, or Populist speech. The platforms of the international conventions have never been used for partizan purposes, and it is obvious that they can not be. Any such use of them would discredit the conventions and make further good-citizenship work impossible. Hence the objections of the president and secretary and treasurer to portions of this speech, tho it is needless to say that they are all Prohibitionists-whether third-party Prohibitionists or not-and anti-saloon men of the most pronounced character. . . Mr. Woolley's charges of cowardice, time-serving, and that the management of the United Society is in league with 'dirty politics,' will scarcely produce their desired effect."-- The Golden Rule (Relig.), Boston.

"The verdict of any fair-minded man must be that President Clark and those who stand with him are wiser than this man, as construction is always wiser than destruction. It is probably true that this plank in the Boston platform well represents the temper of the society:

"Christian Endeavor stands always and everywhere for Christian citizenship. It is forever opposed to the saloon, the gambling-den, the brothel, and every like iniquity. It stands for temperance, for law, for order, and Sabbath-keeping, for a pure political atmosphere; in a word, for righteousness. And this it does, not by allying itself with a political party, but by attempting, through the quick conscience of its individual members, to permeate and influence all parties and all communities.

"Those who have followed the remarkable career of Rev. Dr. Clark in calling forth and developing this important society, and so launching a mighty force in behalf of Christian citizenship, are hardly likely to be shaken by the intemperate assaults of Mr. Woolley. He lacks one of the indispensable qualities of leadership-self-control-as well as several others which go to make the Christian and the gentleman."-The Republican, Springfield.

"Mr. Woolley's rather insidious attempt to snare the officers and to drag the Y. P. S. C. E. bodily into the camp of the Prohibition Party, was very indiscreet, if not impudent. "- The Spy, Worcester.

"Mr. Woolley said some very severe things about the head of the Christian Endeavor movement, but they were not half as

[graphic]

1

conclusive or convincing, altho made in a much more excited tone of voice, as the remarks which followed by the president and secretary and treasurer of that organization. Mr. Woolley is a brilliant man, but he has a most remarkable faculty for getting the worst of it in controversies of that kind."-The Journal, Minneapolis.

"Mr. Woolley appears now to think himself capable of absorbing the Christian Endeavor movement into the political Prohibition Party, and calls on its members to organize and 'intersociety,' under his lead, to stand for political prohibition, and hold side meetings wherever young people's societies gather. We do not anticipate any serious injury to the Christian Endeavor movement from this ill-advised attempt. Christian Endeavorers are enthusiastic believers in temperance and foes of the saloon. Some vote with the third party, among them Secretary Baer and Treasurer Shaw, as they have publicly stated. Others believe they can accomplish more for temperance by voting with other parties. But the effort to divide the Christian Endeavor Society by organizing a political party within it, led by a man who coarsely attacks its honored and beloved President, has nothing to commend itself."—The Congregationalist (Rel.), Boston.

THE TEXAS LYNCHING: SLOW TORTURE AGAIN.

OME months ago a negro charged with rape was burned alive by a lynching mob in Texas. Three or four weeks ago a horrible case of death by mutilation and slow torture at the hands of a Tennessee mob provoked a good deal of indignant comment in the press, and an earnest discussion was started in regard to the means of preventing further outrages of the same kind. Last week this discussion was interrupted and the country startled by another report of horrible cruelty on the part of lynchers. At Tyler, Texas, a negro was burned at the stake for rape and murder. The details as published are revolting in the extreme. Thousands, including women and children, are said to have witnessed the execution. The flames were repeatedly put out and relighted to prolong the agony of the victim, and the correspondents state that "from the time the first match was applied until death came was exactly fifty minutes."

Governor Culberson is said to be determined to secure the punishment of the leaders of the mob, and the act is generally condemned in the Texas press. A few days before the Texas case, an attempt was made at Tiffin, Ohio, to lynch a murderer, but the sheriff and his deputies successfully repelled the mob's attack upon the jail and killed two of its members. Within a few hours of this collision, several militia companies, dispatched by Governor McKinley, arrived on the scene and dispersed the rioters who threatened to lynch the officials as well as the criminal under their protection.

We append comments on both cases:

"The horrible deed of the mob at Tyler, Texas, in burning to death a negro accused of perpetrating an atrocious crime, is unfortunately not without precedent in that State. A few years ago in another Texas town a negro criminal was burned alive. A community which, catching a ruffian red-handed, strings him up to the nearest tree, may be inspired to perpetrate a lawless act by a sentiment of righteous indignation. A community that gloats over the spectacle of a man perishing at the stake is simply brutal, barbarous, and on a level with the red Indians who tortured their captives to death. Lynching brutalizes whole communities to a point that makes them willing and eager not alone to slay but to torture.”—The Transcript, Boston.

"We must have an end of this crime of lynching which has brought disgrace upon some States of the Union. The lynching of colored people in the South occurs so frequently that a man who keeps account of it has a record of between one and two hundred cases for the ten months of this year. It is a blot upon American history. Where was there ever anything more inhuman, more shocking, or more atrocious than the case of negro lynching in Texas, reported in yesterday's Sun in our dispatch

from Fort Worth? Had Governor Culberson been such a one as Governor McKinley, the State would surely have been saved from an infamy, the news of which has already been spread over the world. Were the Governor of Tennessee or the Governor of Louisiana such an one as the Governor of Ohio, the records of these States would be less blotched than they are this year by the crimes of lynchers. Give us a governor faithful to the laws like McKinley, regardless of politics, rather than one through whose negligence dishonor is brought upon his office, upon the courts of law, and upon our country."-The Sun, New York.

[ocr errors]

"A Northern lynching is not an unheard-of event, but there are several marked differences between the lawless attempts to set at naught the judicial branch of our constitutional government, as shown north and south of Mason and Dixon's line. Such attempts made in a Northern State are rare and always meet with legal, if not popular, resistance. In the second place they are generally resisted successfully, at whatever hazard of life, and lawful authority is sustained. On the contrary, the Southern lynching, nine times out of ten, succeeds. It is claimed to be accomplished by the best and most orderly class of citizens, instead of the worst. There is rarely more than a pretense of resistance, and public sentiment is largely on the side of the lawless and murderous acts. Another difference is found in the more barbarous manner of dealing with the doomed victim, torture being by no means unusual with a frenzied mob of self-constituted murderers in the Southern States."—The Times, Rochester.

[ocr errors]

"It was not long since that the State of Texas distinguished herself by banishing prize-fights as brutal and barbarous exhibitions that ought not to be tolerated in a civilized community. It was a wise and edifying step for Texas to take, and yet the burning of a negro murderer at the stake in Tyler, all the inhabitants looking on, was a far more brutal and barbarous performance, and will do more to injure the fame of Texas than any number of prize-fights. Not even the most outrageous crime justifies such a proceeding under a government of law.". The Herald, Boston. "Not one word can be said in defense of the Texas mob that tortured the negro brute to death by fifty-minutes' burning at Tyler, in that State, on Tuesday. The crime of the negro crazed the people aroused all the savageness and fierce hunger for retribution-with the fearful result that followed. This is no defense, but simply an explanation. The people were crazy. The crime made them so. Yet it is no defense for the mob. Speedy and summary vengeance in death, regardless of the forms of law, might be looked for. The torturing and burning was a blistering disgrace. It recalls the savageness of the American Indian, and has nothing in common with Christianity and civilization in their crudest states."-The Post, Pittsburg.

"If people are to be permitted to override the law at their pleasure, organize mobs, and burn criminals at the stake, there is no telling where such lawlessness will stop. Mobs are not cool and clear-headed enough to decide questions of guilt or innocence. They may make mistakes. Nor will they confine themselves to one class of cases. Obnoxious and friendless persons will always be in danger in communities where lynch law prevails. Such barbarous deeds give a State a bad name all over the world, and keep back capital, enterprise, and immigration. It will take many years of good conduct to blot out the Tyler affair." -The Constitution, Atlanta.

"The disposition of the negro who so fiendishly assaulted and murdered Mrs. Bell near Tyler will be a morsel for some of our Northern newspapers to chew on for a spell, and none need forget that they will chew. Of course negroes are hanged or burned everywhere for such crimes, and always will be, but this Tyler incident will serve as the text for all the newspaper editorials and sermons and lectures and speeches. These writers and speakers have been slandering the South for years on account of this mode of meting out justice to rape fiends, and still the practise goes on. It is an unwritten law everywhere the negro moves and has his being that when he assaults a white woman he shall die. The mode of execution is generally determined by the heinousness of the crime, and the time allowed him to live is but little longer than it takes to catch him; but the execution as surely follows the catching as the howls of the aforesaid writers and speakers follow the lynching."-The Times, Waco.

EVERY time there is a Republican nomination for the Presidency Mr. Sherman tragically exclaims: Sold again!"-The Record, Chicago.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »