and when war was unavoidable between Italy and the Choa they did not hesitate for the infamous greed of gain to furnish to our enemies 60,000 breech-loaders, destined to break open the breasts of our brothers fighting in Africa. These 60,000 guns were purchased in a factory of Liege, Belgium, by two scoundrels born in Italy, and who were treating with Makonnen, the representative of Menelik. The arms were put up at their own warehouse in boxes labeled 'Pratica Makonnen,' and they were sent via Obock to Abyssinia.' "It is to be hoped that such a revelation, connected with the declaration of the French Government that no guns, mitrailleuses, or ammunition could possibly have been taken from the national armories, will set at rest the accusations launched against the French military authorities, and considerably help the movement which in Italy is waxing stronger toward a friendly rapprochement between the kingdom of King Humbert and the Republic of France."- The Tribune, New York. A Lesson to American Jingoes.-"Bankrupt in fame, and on the verge of financial ruin, the condition of Italy should serve as a warning to those statesmen who prefer the deceptive glory of a policy of foreign adventure to the humdrum of home politics. Our Congressmen, of course, are above learning anything from 'abroad.”—The Record, Philadelphia. "If the Italian disaster serves no other purpose, it is to be hoped it will help to call the attention of modern nations to the results of the military mania which is now disturbing the Christian world." The Evening Post, New York. "When we contemplate the plight of Italy, brought about by vainglorious politicians and hare-brained jingoes, we can not but congratulate ourselves as Americans upon the traditional foreign policy of the United States, which consists in refraining from intermeddling with what does not concern us, at the same time serving warning that we shall permit no aggression from our neighbors."- The Ledger, Philadelphia. "If, as seems probable, the defeat marks the failure of Italy's scheme of African empire it will have an important effect on America, for the surplus population which the Italian Government wished to deflect to African colonies will set toward America with a still stronger current. Latin America will be greatly benefited by it, but much of it will continue to reach the United States until such time as Italian politicians cease the attempt to conceal misgovernment at home by stirring up trouble abroad." -The World, New York. "It has been stated in the dispatches from Europe that Italy might aid Spain in case of a war between the latter and the United States. This is not probable. Italy for a long time to come will have quite as much as she can do in attending to her own affairs. The present crisis is the gravest the Italians have had to face since the unity of their country was established."The American, Baltimore. CONGRESS AND THE CUBAN QUESTION. T HE attitude of Congress in favor of the recognition of Cubans as belligerents has been practically determined by the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Thursday, March 5. That committee reported in favor of concurring with the resolutions substituted for the Senate resolutions The text of the House resoby a vote of 263 to 17 in the House. lutions is as follows: Resolved, By the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring therein) that in the opinion of Congress a state of public war exists in Cuba, the parties to which are entitled to belligerent rights, and the United States should observe a strict neutrality between the belligerents. "Resolved, That Congress deplores the destruction of life and property caused by the war now waging in that island, and believing that the only permanent solution of the contest, equally in the interests of Spain, the people of Cuba, and other nations would be in the establishment of a government by the choice of the people of Cuba, it is the sense of Congress that the Government of the United States should use its good offices and friendly influence to that end. "Resolved, That the United States has not intervened in struggles between any European governments and their colonies on this continent: but from the very close relations between the people of the United States and those of Cuba, in consequence of its proximity and the extent of commerce between the two people, the present war is entailing such losses upon the people of the United States that Congress is of the opinion that the Government of the United States should be prepared to protect the legitimate interests of our citizens by intervention if necessary." The difference between these resolutions and the Senate resolutions consists in the substitution of the second and third resolutions above for the recommendation in the Senate resolutions to the effect that the President should use his good offices to secure recognition of the independence of Cuba by the Spanish Govern ment. Discussion of the Cuban question in the American press covers a wide range of interesting phases. The action of Congress is very generally approved. The Power of Congress for Peace or War.-"While it has been usual for the law-making department of the Government to leave the Executive a free hand as regards unripe questions of foreign policy, there are very respectable precedents for the other course. It is the duty of Congress watchfully to observe what is done or left undone in these matters by the Executive. It is the right of Congress to interpose with advice, or even still more energetically, if it sees a real and urgent occasion for its interposition. Moreover, Congress must judge for itself whether such an occasion has actually arisen. The President may think that a question is as yet unripe. Congress may think differently. In that case, Congress will, of course, act upon its own opinion. It should be remembered that it is to Congress-and not to the President-that the Constitution has confided the supreme decision between peace and war. It should not be forgotten that the Senate is clothed by the Constitution with executive as well as legislative powers. No treaty can be made, no Ambassador or Minister sent abroad, without its consent. It is not meddling with matters that do not concern it when it turns its attention to any question of foreign policy.”—The Courant, Hartford. International and Higher Law.-"In the matter of our national attitude toward Cuba all talk about international law is apart from the purpose. This is an act of sovereignty, and there is no international law that binds our sovereignty. "It is well to bear this in mind and to emphasize it. International law is a secondary matter. A sovereign nation can obey or disregard it at will, subject only to conscience and consequences. The primary law is the will of the American people. If they want to aid Cuba they can do so in any way and to any extent that seems to them proper, and no international law can restrain them so long as they are ready to take the consequences. If their self-interest, their dignity, their honor, their sense of. humanity, or their sympathy with the cause of liberty moves them to any course of action they can do what seems good in their eyes and justify their course with the strong arm against the challenge of any questioner. . "What Congress has done the people have desired, and they are willing to answer for it. There is a higher law than any international code, and one that is more binding upon the conscience of a free people."— The World, New York. No Cause for Interference.-"Cuba contains 47.278 square miles of territory. Its area is a little less than that of Louisiana and a little greater than that of Mississippi. Its population is about 1,650,000, of whom 65 per cent. are white and 35 per cent. colored. In recent peaceful times Spain obtained an annual rev enue of $25,000,000 from the island, and it will require an addition to that amount of $15,000,000 a year to pay war expenses if the rebellion is crushed. "If the insurrection should be successful the Cuban debt on account of Spain necessarily would be repudiated. Legitimate war expenses would be acknowledged and a big loan to set up the new government in business would be contracted. But it might be years before a substantial and responsible government, like that of Mexico, would obtain a sure foothold. "With Cuba in the possession of a friendly and comparatively weak power like Spain there is no reason why the United States It is, in fact, more should interfere with its colonial relations. of a protection to our coasts than if it was a part of the Union or an independent power. It occupies in regard to Mexico a position similar to that which it occupies in regard to the United States. If there should be any danger that Cuba would pass into the possession of a strong European power the situation would be changed. But as no such danger is now presented the United States have no cause for interference, especially at the risk of war."-The Chronicle, Chicago. The Bankruptcy of Spain.~~“Credit is absolutely necessary to the conduct of war in Cuba by Spain. The island is 3,000 miles away. In time of peace, even, Cuba does not produce food for its own normal population. In time of war every pound of food for each of 140,000 soldiers has to be bought and transported to the island. The negro troops of the insurrection can live in part on sugar-cane and local products. European troops can not. Their food calls for a daily cash outlay. They can not live on the country, as they might in a more civilized or more northern country. Munitions of war and equipment call for other expenditures nearly as large. "All told, Spain has now to find about $1,000,000 a week. Spanish revenue can not supply this. For years the Spanish national budget has shown a deficit. In addition, as in most Latin countries, a large part of local expenditure is paid from the royal treasury. Local police, roads, the religious establishment and other similar outlays are paid in whole or in part by the national Government. An exchequer thus situated has no margin of expenditure. It can not divert its outlay in time of war without deranging the entire machinery of society. "Spain can do nothing but borrow to meet Cuban war expenditures. Six months ago it managed to sell Cuban five-per-cent. bonds, secured first by Cuban revenues and next by the national indorsement, at 80. These bonds are now below 70, and steadily dropping. European financiers always prefer bonds secured by specific revenues to those resting on the general credit of a nation, but with the United States looming larger and larger in the path of Spain future Cuban revenues become a very shaky security, on which no prudent banker will lend at any price. "When Spain is unable to borrow money the active prosecution of the war will stop. Hostilities may drag on for some time, but troops can not be fed and maintained at a distance of 3,000 miles without cash, and cash for Spain can only come from bonds, and bonds will not sell when one branch of our Government after another is solemnly voicing the national desire that Cuba must be free."- The Press, Philadelphia. The Right of Search.-"Recognition of belligerency entitles Spain to search our vessels upon the high seas to see whether they are or are not carrying articles that are contraband of war to the Cubans. It is not very clear what vessels she may and what she may not search under international law, but it is very clear that our Government will never concede her the right to search any that are not bound to Cuban ports; and when she searches she does so at her own proper peril. Any citizen may arrest a felon without a warrant, but when a citizen stops another he must be a felon in fact. If it turns out that the party arrested is no felon, the citizens arresting him will be liable to the injured And so of Spain. She will arrest our vessels at her own proper peril. If they are violating the laws of war she will be held justified in the arrest. But if they are not violating the laws of war, she will be in the position of the man who arrests the other' that turns out to be no felon. This is the view of the case from the standpoint of international law. man. "But we have a special treaty with Spain, made in 1795, which regulates now her right to search our vessls. This treaty provides that her ships shall not approach an American ship nearer than within gunshot, and there she shall stop and call upon the American ship to stop. She shall then send out a boat with not more than four persons to examine the cargo of the American ship."-The Times, Richmond, Va. How Shall Cuba be Paid For?-"The question, as The Scimitar sees it, in the main amounts to this: Does the United States want Cuba, and if so, shall it pay for the island ir reputation, bullets, or dollars? For it were absurd to contend that this country should go bail for the mongrel hordes that are now overrunning and devastating the island in the name of 'liberty.' There are not ten Americans in the hundred who believe the mixed and degenerate races represented in the bands of Gomez and Maceo to be capable of self-government. No man can think so without ignoring the example of Haiti and San Domingo, which are practically a part of the archipelago to which Cuba belongs. In addition to this race barrier, the Cubans have shown by their mode of warfare that they acknowledge no restraints of civilization. They have done more to make Cuba a desert than all the Spanish robbers have done in four hundred years."— The Evening Scimitar, Memphis, Tenn. THE STANFORD CASE AND PACIFIC RAIL- FIN INAL decision against the Government in a suit to recover about $15,000,000 from the estate of the late Leland Stanford of California was given by the Supreme Court, March 2. Suit was brought in the California courts for Senator Stanford's proportion, as a stockholder of the Cenrtal Pacific Railroad Company, of the alleged liability of the corporation to the United States for bonds advanced to it by the Government. The Supreme Court'affirms the decision of two lower courts to the effect that no such liability attached to Senator Stanford either under the acts of Congress relating to the Pacific roads or under California's constitution. The decision is thus summarized in press reports: "The Justice [Harlan] said that the acts of Congress of 1862, 1864, and 1865 all related to one subject, and must be considered as a whole when their application to that subject is to be learned. The acts of 1862 and 1864 provided for the sale of the railroads and their property in case the corporations failed to pay the bonds, as the full extent of the protection Congress deemed it necessary to make for the repayment of its debts by the companies. "No one of these acts contains a clause imposing personal liability upon stockholders for the debts of the corporation. Congress should have done so, but failed, and stockholders therefore are not to be held liable. The State laws of California regulating the personal liability of stockholders, said the Justice, could not be held to apply, except upon the theory that Congress intended to require a greater security for the loan to the Central Pacific than for that to the Union Pacific, and there was no evidence in the legislation of any intent to make such discrimination." The importance of the decision and its relation to probable action by Congress concerning the bonded indebtedness are dwelt upon in the press. The Question of Liability Under the California Constitution. "None of the Federal laws assume to render the stockholders personally liable for the corporate debts, and there was no such common-law liability. The California constitution, however, declares that each stockholder of a corporation or joint-stock association shall be 'individually and personally liable for his proportion of all its debts and liabilities.' This constitutional provision was in force when the Central Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of California; and the position of the Government in the suit against Mrs. Stanford, as her husband's executrix, has been that, the railroad being a California corporation, its stockholders were subject to the liability imposed by the constitution of California. 'But the constitution of that State also provided that dues from corporations should be secured by such individual liability and other means as might be prescribed by law; and the State Supreme Court had decided that legislation was necessary to give any effect to the mandate of the constitution that stockholders should be personally liable for their proportion of the debts of a corporation. Indeed, it was not clear what the word 'propor tion' meant in this provision. The legislature subsequently enacted statutes, under the power thus conferred, which distinctly fixed the character of the liability; but these statutes were not passed until after the Pacific Railroad companies had accepted the benefits of the acts of Congress already mentioned, thereby entering into a contract with the United States which could not be varied or affected by State legislation. Hence all the Federal courts have held, in the Stanford case, that the State laws of California prescribing the liability of stockholders can have no application to the owners of shares in the Central Pacific Railroad Company."— The Sun, New York. meas busi A Decision Against Socialistic Demagogs.-"The decision comes at an opportune time. Congress is now considering ures for the adjustment of the Pacific Railroad debts. Two alternatives are presented. One is to effect á settlement upon ness principles of a purely business transaction. The other is to exercise sovereign power, and by some sort of unbusiness-like procedure take possession of the roads and initiate the Socialistic policy of Government control and management of railroads. The advocates of the latter course have been howling themselves red in the face over the infamies and crimes of the projectors and builders of the roads, and insisting that they or their heirs and executors should be compelled to pay the principal and interest of the Government loan. That feature of their contention has C RA now been positively and finally eliminated. What every intelligent person knew before has now been put in the form of a decision of the court of last resort. The claim of the Government upon the Pacific railroads is that of a second mortgage bondholder, differing in no degree from that of any other second mortgage bondholder. Its whole security is named and described in the bond, and it can not fall back upon any provision of the California or any other State constitution to increase it by holding individual stockholders to personal responsibility. That demagog's cry having been silenced, there seems to be no reason why Congress should not settle down to the considération of the whole question upon its merits."-The Tribune, New York. Too Late to Catch Old Plunderers.-"The heirs of Leland Stanford, by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, secure a reaffirmation of their legal title to the whole of the great estate left by him. But the decision does not and can not establish or confirm the moral title. The Pacific Railroad cases have been investigated, officially and otherwise, time without number; and if one fact connected with the building and looting of those roads has been established to the satisfaction of everybody, it is that the great fortunes accumulated by Stanford and a number of others in the building and management of the Central Pacific were in large part dishonestly acquired, to the defrauding of the United States Government and the other security-holders, and to` the lasting cost of the patrons of the road. "But the time to stop such practises is when they are going on. [Pursuit] fails largely because, had it succeeded only one company of looters would be brought to book, while the Union Pacific looters would have been permitted to go untouched. . . The chase after the plunderers has been undertaken too late; they are beyond reach and will have to be left, whoever they are, in the enjoyment of their gains. Their former interests in the roads have been as a rule transferred to innocent persons and the rights of these people are entitled to some consideration. The Government's claims can best be enforced and protected by an extension of the debt, and this method will at the same time best conserve other interests in the properties."— The Republican, Springfield, Mass. Such Fraud Should be Prevented.-"The decision seems to be based on the principle that stockholders are not individually liable. If the case were that of a mere stockholder the effect of the decision would be no more than justice. But the marrow of the contention was that the managers of the Central Pacific road removed the assets of that corporation to their individual control which belonged by right to the corporation, and did so for the express purpose of weakening the security on the debt due to the United States Government. It ought to be law, if it is not, that such a fraud on corporate responsibility and public honesty can not be successfully made, and that the diverted resources can be recovered, in whatever hands they are found, just as any other stolen property would be. The result of the suit, however, seems to be that the operation is to be successful, and that the ability of the Government to recover the debt due is restricted to the roadway, which has been systematically reduced to the slightest possible value. This experience ought to be a warning against any more governmental relations with a corporate system in which the successful evasion of debts stands at so high a premium.' The Dispatch, Pittsburg. Officers and Directors Not Liable to the United States.In consonance with the Supreme Court's view a few of the difficulties under which the Government labors in dealing with the Pacific roads are plainly set forth in the following statement sent by the Court to the House Committee on Pacific Railroads, March 2, in reply to questions submitted: First Question-Whether the officers and directors of the bondaided Pacific railroads incurred any liability to the United States by the unlawful issue of the stock of said companies? Answer-If the officers and directors of any company knowingly made or permitted any unlawful issue of stock thereof, they became personally liable to the company or to its lawful stockholders, but not to the United States, which was merely creditor. The rights of creditors could not be affected by the improper issue of stock, which merely represents the property of the company, but does not dispose of or encumber it. Second Question-Whether the said officers and directors incurred any liability to their respective companies, or to the United States, for the profits on contracts made with themselves, or persons representing them, for the construction of said railroads? Answer-If officers and directors made contracts with themselves or with persons representing them, to their own profit or the detriment of the company, they became liable to it unless such contracts were knowingly authorized or ratified by a majority of the directors having no interest therein, or by the stockholders, but they did not become liable to the United States. Third Question-Whether the United States, as a creditor of the said corporation, can maintain actions in their own name against said parties for the enforcement of said liability, if it exist, until all remedies to enforce payment of the debts owing by said companies to the United States have been exhausted? Answer-It was held in the case of the United States against the Union Pacific Railway Company, known as the 'Credit Mobilier" case, that such liability was to the respective companies only. The United States, therefore, could not maintain any action thereon against the guilty parties, but could assert the rights of the company by a proper suit in equity as a creditor, and would not be bound first to exhaust other remedies if a showing were made of probable loss or delay. Fourth Question-Whether, "if such liability exists, the United States will be barred in any action which might be brought for the enforcement thereof by the statute of limitation which would bar the companies if the actions were brought in their name and behalf? In other words, whether the United States would be entitled to maintain action as creditor of said corporation against its directors and officers, which the corporations themselves could not maintain? Answer-As the United States would be merely asserting the rights of the companies as assets to be applied to the payment of their creditors, any statute of limitations which would bar the companies would also bar the United States. Fifth Question-Whether the facts found and stated by the Pacific Railroad Commissioners of 1887 in their report to the President are supported by evidence legally admissible in a court of justice? Answer-If this question means to ask whether evidence before the Pacific Railroad Commissioners upon which they found the facts stated in their report would be admissible in a suit or action between parties in a court, I answer, generally, that the statements made by any witness would be admissible against him, but not against any other person, and that original documents would be admissible, or copies under the usual rules relating to secondary evidence. With these exceptions, the evidence would not be admissible. I do not understand the question to ask for my opinion whether, if the Commissioners had applied legal rules of evidence, the testimony should have been admitted. Baltimore and Ohio Receivership.-The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad went into the hands of receivers last week. The immediate cause was the inability of the directors to raise about $400,000 to pay interest charges due March 1. Ten years ago the stock of the company sold for 200 and it had a (reputed) surplus of $48,000,000. At the beginning of last year its stock stood at about 60 and at the beginning of this year at about 32, going down to 20 a few days before assignment was made. A banking syndicate to which application was made for a loan put an expert accountant (Mr. Little) at work and on his report refused the loan, thus precipitating the crisis. The result is attributed to years of mismanagement. The Manufacturers' Record thus enumerates the causes : 'A steady and rapid accumulation of interest-bearing debt far in excess of business, every enterprise costing far more than the estimates, the payment of dividends not earned, the absolute domination of the company by one interest, the utter disregard for years of local business, the craze for through business, a persistent policy which resulted in making enemies rather than friends, discriminations which forced coal and other development operations to other lines and which has made it almost impossible to induce investors to buy coal properties along this road." The same journal predicted two years ago that the property would come into the hands of J. P. Morgan & Co., and become a part of the Southern railway system controlled by that firm. There will then, it thinks, be "a grapple of giants," the Pennsylvania system and the Morgan interests. Bradstreet's regrets the unavoidably bad effect upon English in vestors. ASKED if he was indifferent to public opinion, Mr. Collis P. Huntington told a Congressional committee the other day that he was satisfied if he commanded the respect of one man, and that man Mr. Collis P. Huntington. This sentiment has a rather familiar sound, but no one has yet succeeded in expressing it more pithily and forcibly than the late William H. Vanderbilt. The Journal, Providence, R. I. THE silver statesmen appear to be resting on their ores.- The Herald, Boston. THE CHURCH PRESS ON THE SALVATION THE ARMY DISSENSIONS. HE difficulties arising in the Salvation Army through the removal of Ballington Booth as the head of the American division, and resulting in the determination on the part of the late Commander and his wife to set up an independent organization, are causing widespread journalistic comment. There is an element in this comment which is noteworthy as going beyond mere partizanship with this or that branch of the Booth family. Thought on the subject has, in some eminent quarters, especially in church papers, taken the shape of criticism of the nepotic institution of the Booth family and of the absolutism by which it reigns. The Churchman (Episcopal) thinks that much needless sympathy has been expended upon the American leaders of the Salvation Army, and observes that the difficulties which have recently arisen are evidently a family quarrel, and nothing more. That paper says: "The Booth family, and the Booth family alone, were considered to be the only persons to whom high authority could be entrusted; and the most peculiar feature of the whole transaction is found in the fact that no serious objection has ever been raised to such a monstrous assumption of authority on the part of one family. It probably finds no parallel in the history of religion, and scarcely one in the history of the world." The Churchman believes that the Salvation Army has done a vast amount of good among the poorer classes, but questions if this good has not been greatly exaggerated. We extract another paragraph from the same paper: "We are under the impression that the outside world does not know the real circumstances of the dispute between Mr. William Booth and his son Ballington. But assuming that there are no latent reasons for Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth's separation from the Army, other than those of absolute obedience to an absolute authority, it may perhaps be well for them seriously to consider whether the time has not come for them to face the fact that the Salvation Army is, after all, something based upon a monstrous assumption. Mr. William Booth has no more authority to claim the headship of a large religious organization than the Bishop of Rome has to assume the power of a pope. And it is probable that Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth, who have succeeded in surrounding themselves with so many true friends in the land of their adoption, have at last discovered that their father has assumed an authority to which he has no moral right, and has established a great autocratic system of religion which is not only entirely at variance with the teachings of Holy Scripture, but is completely out of touch with the spirit and intention of the institutions of a great republic.” The Outlook (Evangelical) says that the public must measure this unhappy controversy not by doubtful information respecting details, but by the official action of the parties, and remarks that that official action leaves no room to question that the fracture which has taken place is due to the endeavor to extend an autocratic organization by autocratic methods over a democratic community. On this point The Outlook remarks : "The division in the Salvation Army is the inevitable result of the attempt to organize and maintain absolutism in a democratic age. The Salvation Army is by the very principles of its order Its commander-in-chief is an absolute despot, an autocracy. tho he may be a consecrated, conscientious, and benevolent despot. In our time, and certainly in our country, such a despotism can be maintained only in case he who possesses the authority exercises such discretion in wielding it as to allow large liberty to depart mental and other subordinate heads. Local selfgovernment is inherent in American institutions. It has in this country modified the Roman Catholic Church, revolutionized the Mormon Church, and affected even the Jesuit Order. The Roman Catholic autocrat and the Jesuit autocrat have been wise enough to perceive the necessity of flexibility in organization, and have allowed it." The Congregationalist speaks in the highest terms of Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth, saying: "The trouble in the Salvation Army is creditable to its members in this country and a high compliment to the character and work of Commander and Mrs. Ballington Booth. They have been summarily ordered to give up their positions and to leave the United States for another field. This order, under conditions recently imposed, they have now declined to obey, tho they at first accepted the summons without remonstrance, and they have severed their official connection with the Army. They have done a great deal to improve the methods and efficiency of the Army and to win for it the sympathy of the churches. They seem to have aimed to develop its character in consonance with the American religious spirit. It was to be expected that they would gain the enthusiastic devotion of the Army which has been so freely accorded to them." The Mid-Continent (Presbyterian, St. Louis) thinks that some 'trouble like this was inevitable from the very constitution of the Army. It says: "One-man powers always have serious weaknesses. It is in the very Booth monarchy that we have for years foreseen possible future danger in this band of Christian workers, which in spite of crudities and some serious faults in their attitude toward the sacred ceremonies of the Lord's Supper and baptism, have become a sturdy army in the cause of Christ; of especial value in the slums of our great cities, reaching a class and doing a work there the churches thus far have been unable to successfully reach or do." The Episcopal Recorder (Reformed Episcopal, Philadelphia) is inclined to the belief that Ballington Booth made a mistake in resigning. It says on this point: "Without attempting to judge of the merits of the case, and while admitting that Mr. and Mrs. Booth have felt wounded and hurt, we yet deplore their hasty action. A resignation should never be tendered hastily or under trial. Self-respect, personal dignity, consistency, and, above all, the well-being of the cause of Christ they have at heart, should absolutely prohibit persistence in such action now." The Christian Observer (Presbyterian, Louisville) makes this observation: "Ballington Booth has many friends here, and may have a large following. Of course we all recognize the original error in introducing a monarchical and despotic element into the govern. ment of this branch of the church. Out of this grows the rupture." The Journal and Messenger (Baptist, Cincinnati) says: "One of the first principles of the Salvation Army, like that of the Jesuits, is obedience. But it is hardly to be supposed that an army of hundreds of thousands, in all parts of the world, can be commanded for a long time by one man, and still held under such sway. General Booth is becoming advanced in years, and his place must soon be filled by another. It may be too early to prophesy what is to come out of the Salvation Army movement." The Commercial (Buffalo) has another view of the matter to present. It says: “Ballington Booth has become an American citizen. He wants to live here and bring up his children as Americans. He and his wife have won universal respect and great popularity here. Naturally they shrink from tearing up all these associations by the roots and moving at what some of our exchanges call the 'tyrannical and arbitrary whim' of the General, who is said to be jealous of his son's success and authority. All this is intelligible, but it does not justify Ballington Booth's refusal to obey his orders. If without question he can not do that, he does well to resign. If he and his wife are the unselfish and devoted persons they have been supposed to be they will not listen to the voice of the tempter that comes by them in the form mainly of newspaper suggestions that they start a rival and warring American Salva tion Army." The Advance (Chicago) says, editorially: "Commander and Mrs. Ballington Booth have announced their purpose to inaugurate a new movement for the purpose of contin uing their labors of 'uplifting the un-churched and un-Christian |