you spend six francs to get the value of six sous. Their consciences are equal to that of the employee that Napoleon III. surprised once at Fontainebleau, burning tree-trunks in the middle of July in the great fireplaces of the deserted halls of the château. 'What are you doing that for?' asked the Emperor. To get the ashes, which are my perquisite, according to agreement.' 'Faith!' said Napoleon, 'why don't you take away the wood?' 'Sire, I am not a thief!' It is not cooks alone who can appreciate such a mental state. It is eminently administrative.

"In fine, granting that it is still possible to have honest, conscientious, even devoted servitors, there is scarcely any one who does not complain of the difficulty of obtaining good domestics. Chambermaids are the easiest to find. The pretty ones commonly go to the bad; the homely ones feel that they are unprotected and try to keep their places, dreading to have to return to the country, whence they usually come. But the tricks that valets and cooks play their masters form a subject of conversation as well at the clubs as at the five-o'clock teas of the bourgeoisie. Servants are no longer faithful; they cheat when they do not rob; they are felt to be hostile, inimical, spying, delighted to surprise a scandalous secret, never dreaming of anything but to work as little as possible, leaving you for a dollar more a month, insolent when you are a day behind with their wages. This is all true, alas! and the worst is that it is inevitable and is on the increase. For the quality of the democratic spirit is to break all bonds of discipline, to consider moral direction as an attempt upon liberty, and protection as an injury.

"The democratic independence of spirit is nine times out of ten merely another name for envy. The modern servant, especially the man, is at once foolishly proud of the part that he takes in the life of luxury and wealth of those that he serves, and basely jealous of this very luxury and wealth which humiliates him. And since he loses respect, gratitude, devotion, the master on his part, knowing that he is master no longer, not even an acknowledged patron, casts off the duties that he himself owes to his servants. He reprimands and discharges, warns seldom, never counsels. Masters and servants, living side by side, are separated by impassable chasms. Hate-the word is not too strong-comes to exist between them. The master suffers from being obliged to be haughty and from having to guard himself against the one who serves him. Socially these two classes of employers and employees are perhaps those that detest each other most. The moral separation of these existences condemned to such intimate association shows itself in the very management of our households.

"There are few houses now where the servant is not relegated to the top story, under the eaves. Even in fine mansions, these servants' quarters are small, never having a homelike look. And, nevertheless, the servant wishes no other. There he has his liberty. He abuses it. If Zola has exaggerated in his account of the servants' quarters in Pot-Bouille, he nevertheless saw truly. They are too often given over to debauchery, and there always, almost always, the servant vents his ill humor against his lot, cherishes his bile and his envy and descends thence as the Roman plebeian descended from the Aventine, subjugated but not conquered by his adversary."-Translated for THE LITERARY DI

GEST.

HOW SHALL WE PUNCTUATE THE SALUTATION IN OUR LETTERS?

SHALL

HALL it be a comma, a semicolon, a colon, or a comma and a dash? The query has arisen as to what shall be the punctuation-mark after the salutation in a letter. Shall it be Dear Sir, Dear Sir; Dear Sir: or Dear Sir,-?

The Educational News (Newark, Del.), which advocates the comma, has this to say on the subject:

"The confusion arises from the different forms used, thoughtlessly perhaps, by both business men and the educators of the day. Most men write these forms as they learned them in childhood, and when asked to give a reason for their practise claim simply that 'it is custom.' Is it? If so why does custom vary so greatly? When a man writes a sentence or even a punctuation mark he ought to be able to give a reason if there is one. prepared to do this in our usage of the marks referred to? "We write a sentence, 'My dear boy, I am glad to see you.'

Are we

Another, 'Dear Mary, when will you pay us a visit?' In each of these sentences and thousands of others like them, we place a comma after the name of the person addressed because that is the accepted law of usage with regard to the nominative case, independent by address, and nobody that understands good usage thinks of violating the rule. How do the sentences given differ from such salutations as begin 'My dear Mother,' 'Dear Captain Smith,' 'Dear Sir,' 'My dear Madam,' and the like? In no way whatever. They are all subject to the same rule, that a comma follows a noun used in the nominative case independent by direct address. The fact that Dear Sir or Dear Madam is on one line while the body of the letter begins on the next has nothing to do with the matter.

Ask yourself why you use the semi-colon, your answer likely is, Because it is custom. Ask yourself why you use the colon, and your answer is the same, and quite as unsatisfactory. Ask yourself why you use the comma and your answer is wholly intelligible and satisfactory. It means something to the learner and it will always be a reminder of the well-established principle of usage in connection with the independent case or address wherever it occurs.

"The use of the semi-colon or the colon probably arises from the fact that most people when they read a letter aloud let the voice fall in pronouncling Dear Sir, Dear Madam, Dear Friend, etc., but it must be borne in mind that the use of punctuation is to determine grammatical construction and not to mark rhetorical or elocutionary pauses."

-

The New Woman. "We would call the attention of the 'New Woman' to the profound and subtle aphorism of Dr. Samuel Johnson. 'Nature,' declares the great lexicographer, 'has given women so much that the law has very wisely given them little.' The compliment contained in these words must not be allowed to obscure its far-reaching application. Plato, when he prescribed in his Republic that the law.should put women more fully on an equality with men, and should accord them as high an education, both mental and physical as men enjoyed, was consistent enough to dock them of the privilege given them by nature, z.e., of retaining possession of, and educating their own children. The new woman of Plato is the woman without a home, and robbed of her children. This is the logical application of the doctrine of woman's emancipation."- The Churchman.

CORRESPONDENTS' CORNER.

Emperor William as King of England.

HALIFAX, N. S., December 12, 1895. Editor of THE LITERARY DIGEST:In an article translated for THE LITERARY DIGEST of December 7th, under the above heading, the writer makes some statements unsupported by history, and certain incorrect assertions. The Act of Settlement, of 1700, shows that the British Parliament had and has the power to bestow the crown on whomsoever it wishes. William the Conqueror, in 1066, induced the Witan' to proclaim him king. The Parliament declared the throne vacant when Charles I. endeavored to have things all his own way. William, Prince of Orange, was offered the throne by the English Parliament, and accepted it while James II. was alive. True, in the past the crown has been kept mostly in one line, so that Victoria traces her lineage back to the conqueror-but nothing outside of public sentiment could prevent the crown being bestowed upon an able statesman, or some other family, if Parliament voted to do so. The Act of Settlement and other succession statutes do not use the word 'children' as claimed by tha writer, the expression is "heirs of his (or her) body;" and there may be a distinction between heirs and children. In reviewing the English sovereigns we see the law of primogeniture not always prevailing. The case most analogous to the present was that of Henry VIII. and his children. For altho Edward was the youngest, and a mere child, he took precedence of his sisters, and they only reigned when there was no male heir. There is no statute declaring the eldest child to be heir, and the unwrit ten law of England is that the eldest son shall have priority. Should all the sons of Queen Victoria die, or cease to "join in communion with the Church of England as by law established," Emperor William might have his claims allowed by the Parliament. Till then there are many ahead of W. R. PARSONS.

him.

The general business situation has been affected by the precipitation of possible complications with Great Britain. First to feel this are the stockmarket and prices of cotton and of wheat, the influence of which ramify among business houses in many different lines. The serious nature of the President's statement of the case had the effect here and in London of causing free selling of securities even in sight of the fact that expectation of war is slight. The most unfavorable feature is, and is likely to be, continued negotiations and the uncertainty which must exist until the incident is concluded.

mous scale.

A violent depression in stock and security values has followed the President's Venezuela message and its reception in Europe. The London market has been no less disturbed than our own, and the foreign selling of our securities was on an enorOn Friday the stock-market approached a panicky condition, with heavy declines and total demoralization for a time, followed, however, by a rally. Gold shipments for the week are $6,580,000, of which $3,500,000 go to London to-day. The Treasury gold reserve is below $70,000,000. Foreign exchange is up to 4.89% for demand sterling, and bankers show a great disinclination to draw in view of the possible curtailments of foreign credits here. Two Stock Exchange failures have accompanied the decline in prices. Money ranged as high as 80 per cent. on call yesterday, but dropped to 6 before the close. There were heavy losses among speculators on a margin. Representatives of Bradstreet's at 23 cities interviewed many leading manufacturers and merchants Thursday as to the effect, present or prospective, on trade of the international situation precipitated by the President's message, the message itself, and as to the probability of actual hostilities. The interviews fairly represent the sentiment of many of the most important financial, industrial, and commercial houses of the country. In no instance, so far as the interviews extend, is war considered the probable outcome. So far as the effect on business is concerned, Eastern and

Western manufacturing centers and many of the larger Western and Northwestern distributing points report none is felt whatever. The influence in the cotton and wheat markets and at the Stock Exchange has been characterized. Perhaps as significant as any other feature of the interviews is that in all cities except four the consensus of opinion distinctly favors the sentiments expressed in the President's message. The exceptions, where opinion on this point was divided, are New York, Boston, Detroit, and Milwaukee.

In the grain market, at the cotton exchanges and throughout the cotton-producing regions, as well as at New York city, Philadelphia, Boston and other New England points, complaints are heard of the effects on business of the international question which has been raised. The "trolley" strike at Philadelphia has overshadowed other trade influences. Leading Southern cities report Christmas retail trade fairly active, but that business in wholesale lines is quiet or unchanged. Dulness is conspicuous in Texas, and cotton continues neglected at leading markets, Charleston alone reporting a moderate general improvement.

The bank clearings' total this week is $1,185,000,000, or 5 per cent. more than it was last week, nearly 14 per cent. more than in the third week of December, 1894, and 20 per cent. more than in the corresponding week of 1893. This week's total is 21.6 per cent. smaller than in the corresponding of 1892, when the aggregate was $1,512,000,000, the largest on record. As compared with the corresponding total in 1891, this week shows a decrease of only 4 per cent.-Bradstreet's, December 21.

CHESS.

All communications for this Department should be addressed: "Chess-Editor, LITERARY

DIGEST."]

Our Christmas Problem.

No. 109.
BY LAWS.
Black-Three Pieces.

K on K 5; Ps on Q 5 and K B 4.

White-Seven Pieces.

2.

3.

B-Rt 2

QxB (at R2) mate

2.

3.

B any

QxB ch

Q-Kt 7 mate

B-Q 4

......

B-K 5

K moves Q-Q 8, ch

QxB (at Q4) mate

3

Qx B, mate

sumption Cured.

2.

Q x P

2.

LIPSCHUTZ. White.

Black.

White.

Black.

3.

4.

I P-Q 4

P.

Q x Kt

4

34

Kt-B

3

2 P-Q B

35 Q-Kt 2

3 Kt-K B 3 P.

3

36 P-B 5

Kt Kt 5 K-R 2 R-Kt 2

4 P-K 3

37 Kt-K 5

Kt-B

B 4

38 B x Kt

Ktx Kt R-Q 2

K-K 6

39 R-B 4

K-Kt sq

M. Tschigorin..

40 B-B 3

Kt-B, 3

41 R-K B sq

R-R 2

43 P-Q Kt 4

Kt-B4 ch Kt x B mate

Q-Bsq, ch

Kx P
PXR (must)
Kt-Bsq, ch Bx P

3

6 B-Q_3 7 P-Q Kt 3 8 B-Kt 2

Q-B 3 mate 15 P-Kt 3

P-
Q-B
Kt-KR 3
Castles
Kt-Q 2
P-K Kt 4
P-Kt 5
Q-Kt 4

B x Kt
Qx P
Q-Kt 4
Kt-B3

42 Q-K 2 B-B 2

44 P-Q R 4
45 P-Kt 5
46 P x P
47 P-Kt 6
48 B x Kt
49 R(B4)-B
50 B-B 4
51 Q-Kt 2
52 -R sq

OR OR OOR

R-Q sq P-R 3 RPX P R-Q R sq Kt Kt 5 RP x B 2 Q-Kt 4 Q-B 3 B-K sq Rx R R-Q 2 K-B 2 K-Kt 3 B-B 2

9 Q-B 2

10 Castles

K-B 7 R-K 3 ch

II Kt-K 2 12 Kt-K sq 13 Kt-B 4 14 P x B

rỗ Kt-Kt 2 17 Kt-B 4

18 Q R-Ksq

Q-B sq, mate 19 B-B sq

Kt-B 2 Kt-K 5 Q-K 2

20 P-B 3 21 R x P

PxP
Kt(B2)-Kt

4/54

53 Q x R -Q R2

22 R(B3)-Bsq K-R sq

55

-B 3

B-Q 2

3

24 B-Kt 2

25 K-R sq

26 B-B sq

R-K Kt sq QR-K B sq Q-B 3

8

R--K 2

27 Kt-K 2

P-KR 4

60 B-B 7

P-K 4

28 B-B 4

Kt-B 2

61 B-Q 8

K-B 3

PXR (queens)

29 Q-R 3

Q-Kt 3

62 R-Kt 8

K-K 3

30 Kt-Kt sq

-Kt 5

63 B x R

Kx B

31 Q-Kt 2

B-K sq

64 R x P ch

Resigns.

32 B-K 2 33 Q-R 3

Q-Kt 3

Kt-R 3

Kt-Kt 5

Kt Kt 6 Kt-K 4, mate 23 Q-K Kt2

There are other variations of this beautiful problem, but those given above are sufficient. Correctly solved by M. W. H.; the Rev. E. M.

Time-3h. 55m.Time-3h. 57m.

Black's roth is very risky. White gave the

Emil Kemeny writes interestingly of the four masters in the Philadelphia Ledger:

"Lasker, in all probability, is the strongest player living. It seems he sees things quicker over the board than any one else, and once he gains an advantage in a game, no matter how small, he knows how to make use of it.

"Mr. Steinitz, who held for twenty-seven years the championship of the world, is probably more profound in his combinations than any other player. It is generally believed that he does not play as strong now as he used to years ago. Some of his games played at the Hastings tourney prove, however, that his play is still of the highest order.

"Tschigorin is the most brilliant player, and he follows Morphy's style of play more than any

Donnan, Independence, Ia.; S. C. Simpson, San had nothing good.

Francisco, Cal.; C. F. Putney, Independence, Ia. Several of our solvers sent R-K 4. This is defeated by B-B 3. B-Q 7 or B 8, with the intention of Q-B sq ch, K x P, B-R 6 or Kt 5 mate, is "cooked" by Q-K sq. Then Q can capture B or interpose.

The only other key-move that offered anything is Kt Kt 5, with the idea of playing Kt-R 3, and mating with Kt-B 4. This is knocked in the head by Qx R, followed by Q x P.

This problem has at least 13 variations, and is conceded to be one of the finest two-movers ever composed.

Correctly solved by M. W. H., J. H. Proudfit; W. G. Donnan; C. F. Putney; the Revs. E. M. McMillin and Gilbert Dobbs, Brownsville, Tenn.; A. H. Gansser, Bay City, Mich.; F. B. Osgood, North Conway, N. H.; F. S. Ferguson, Birmingham, Ala.; H. N. Clark, Adrian, Mich.; Dr. Armstrong, Olympia, Wash.; Prof. C. D. Schmitt, University of Tennessee.

The majority of our solvers picked out B-Q 4. This is defeated by R-Kt 5.

B-K 5 promised great things, but just look how Kt-B 5 stops everything.

Mr. H. E. Bird, of London, has just published a book with the title "CHESS NOVELTIES and Their Latest Developments, with comparisons of the progress of chess openings of the past century and the present, not dealt with in existing works." Mr. Bird is one of the few remaining representatives of the old school. He believes in brilliancy of play, and, probably, would rather lose a game full of imagina tion than to win one safe but dull. His book receives high praise from Chess authorities who have examined ft. (12mo, cloth, $1.50. Mail free of F. WARNE & CO., 8 Cooper Union, N. Y.)

The St. Petersburg Tourney.

PILLSBURY IN THE LEAD.

In the third games of the first round Pillsbury lost to Steinitz, and Lasker beat Tschigorin. The Brooklyn lad again played the Petroff Defence,

and at the adjournment of the afternoon's play

he was looked upon as a sure winner. When play was resumed, he made a weak move which Steinitz at once took advantage of, and the veteran won after sixty moves.

Tschigorin, the master of the famous "Evans," discovered that Lasker knew a thing or two about this gambit, for the Russian was forced to resign after only twenty-five moves.

In the first games of the second round, Pillsbury offered Tschigorin a Queen's Gambit, which was declined. The Russian put up a very plucky fight, but the pressure on him was too great, and he gave up the struggle after 55 moves.

Steinitz tried the same opening on Lasker; but the young master soon became the aggressor, and won the game in forty moves.

In the second series of the second round only one game was played. Lasker was ill. Pillsbury opened with the Queen's Gambit against Steinitz, and got a decided advantage. He became careless, however, and allowed the veteran to escape with a draw, after 55 moves.

GLOBE OFFICE
APPLIANCES

for the rapid and systematic filing of Business Papers.

Practical, Convenient, Time Saving.

Illustrated catalogue-free.
Tells all about OFFICE and
BUSINESS FURNITURE,

The Globe Co.,

CINCINNATI,

Eastern Branch: 42 Beaver St., N. Y.

Sanford's Perfect Heel Protector

is the only device that prevents lop. Blded Boot-Heels. Guaranteed to add 50 per cent. to the wearing quality of any pair of shoes. Made of Silver Steel, chilled, very durable. Easily applied by any one. We mall a sample pair, with nails, for 10c., or a box containing six pairs protectors, with nails, a steel chisel, tin gauge, and full instructions for applying, for 50 cts. Agents wanted. Address. Woodman Co., Box 2872, Boston, Mass.

Printer

saves time and labor; money too100 letters, postal cards, copies of music, drawings, or typewritten copy, in almost no time, and exact copies at that, by using the Lawton Simplex. Requires no washing or cleaning, and saves its cost over and again in sending out notices. Costs but little ($3 to $10).

CAUTION. Other things are being made and called Simplex Printers. The only way to be sure of getting the genuine is to see that yours is the Lawton Simplex Printer. Send for circulars. Agents wanted. LAWTON & CO., 20 Vesey St., New York.

There is no Scenery

on the Continent of America or in the world to be compared with that on the line of the

Canadian Pacific Railway

SUCH IS THE VERDICT

of all Tourists, Experienced Travelers and Globe Trotters who have traveled over the line, and today carries the major portion of AROUND THE WORLD Travel, who are continually trumpeting above fact to their friends and acquaintance and telling them they intend to make the trip again.

Japan, China, Hawaiian and Fijian Islands, Australia and New Zealand all reached by Canadian Pacific Steamships.

For Descriptive Pamphlets, Time Tables and Tickets apply to

E. V. SKINNER, 353 Broadway, New York. H. MCMURTRIE, cor. Third and Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia.

H. J. COLVIN, 197 Washington St., Boston.

C. SHEEHY, 11 Fort St., W. Detroit.

J. F. LEE, 232 So. Clark St., Chicago.

W. R. CALLAWAY, Guarantee Loan Building, Minneapolis.

M. M. STERN, Chronicle Building, San Francisco, or to

D. MCNICOLL, General Pass. Agent, Montreal, Can.

VOL. XII., No. 10

Published Weekly by

PRICE. Per year, in advance, $3.00; four months, on trial, $1.00; single copies, 10 cents.

RECEIPTS.—The yellow label pasted on the outside wrapper is a receipt for payment of subscription to and including the printed date. EXTENSION.-The extension of a subscription is shown by the printed label the second week after a remittance is received. DISCONTINUANCES.-We find that a large majority of our subscribers prefer not to have their subscriptions interrupted and their files broken in case they fail to remit before expiration. It is therefore assumed, unless notification to discontinue is received, that the subscriber wishes no interruption in his series. Notification to discontinue at expiration can be sent in at any time during the year. PRESENTATION COPIES.-Many persons subscribe for THE LITERARY DIGEST to be sent to friends. In such cases, if we are advised that a subscription is a present and not regularly authorized by the recipient, we will make a memorandum to discontinue at expiration, and to send no bill for the ensuing year.

WHOLE NUMBER, 298

nand in restoring his authority over his rebellious provinces in Mexico and South America.

'It was under these circumstances, and to meet this exigency, that England and the United States took counsel with each other, and resolved to intervene against this intervention of the Holy Alliance powers, and demand that the question between Spain and her rebellious colonies be left to themselves, as a purely internal matter, with which outside powers should not meddle. That is, England and the United States resolved to assert the doctrine of non-intervention in the purely internal affairs of a state by any other state as a principle of international law, and to make the principle of non-intervention effective by intervening against intervention.

"This was the Monroe doctrine as understood by its originators, nothing more and nothing less.

"It is true that in an entirely different part of Mr. Monroe's famous message there occurs the declaration that the American continent was, at that time, all occupied by sovereignties capable of governing the entire territory of it, and that nothing more was

62

BARIMA

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

WHAT IS THE MONROE DOCTRINE?

S was to be expected, the President's special message on the Venezuelan dispute has precipitated a general discussion of the Monroe doctrine and the extent to which it applies to the present case. There seems to be general assent to the assertion made by Lord Salisbury that the doctrine has never become a part of international law; but American newspapers pretty generally maintain that this point is immaterial, that the doctrine has become a part of this Government's policy, and, whether recognized or not by other nations, must be upheld by us. Following are some of the more important utterances on this subject :

The Origin of the Doctrine.-"The Monroe doctrine, as understood by those who originated it, had reference to a certain political situation, and was intended to meet that situation. Briefly that situation was as follows: After the overthrow of Napoleon and his European imperial idea, and the restoration of the princes of continental Europe to their thrones, certain of these princes, chief among them the Czar of Russia, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of Prussia, entered into a league, called the Holy Alliance, which, among other things, pledged all to assist each in putting down popular insurrections in the dominions of each respectively.

"That is, the system here established for continental Europe was a league of absolute monarchies, upon the principle of intervention, to aid each other in suppressing all movements for constitutional government and civil liberty in either. The restored Bourbon King of France joined the Alliance shortly after its original establishment, as did all the other powers of continental Europe, except the Papal states. On the other hand, England held aloof from it, refused to join it, and condemned its principles. "The Alliance first applied its principles of intervention in the Neapolitan question in 1821, and restored King Ferdinand IV. It next applied it in restoring King Ferdinand VII. in Spain and suppressing the Spanish revolution of 1822–23.

"It was thought and feared throughout England and the United States that the Alliance intended to lend its power to King Ferdi

[Great Britain claims it all from the Essequibo to Salisbury's extreme line, an refuses to arbitrate the claim as far as the Schomburgk line. The line of Conseso-Vijo shows a compromise proposed by Venezuela between the old Spanish (Senor Fortique) line and the British Schomburgk line.]

open to occupation by any power as a new discovery. But this was not then considered as any part of the Monroe doctrine, nor for many years afterward, altho generally conceded."-Prof. J. W. Burgess, of the Chair of Political Science, Columbia College, New York, in The Evening Post.

Not an Obsolete Doctrine.-"It was in the summer of 1823 that this illustrious English statesman [George Canning] became convinced or suspicious that the Holy Alliance had it in mind to extend its operations to America and reestablish Spanish rule in those colonies. He communicated his belief or suspicion to Mr. Rush, then American Minister in London, and suggested (confidentially) that the United States assist England in preventing any such mischievous action. He thought a public declaration would be useful. Mr. Rush transmitted the proposal to Washington, and the President and Cabinet took it into immediate consideration. Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, was inclined to pooh-pooh it. Not so his colleagues. All of

them notably Mr. Calhoun-thought the matter pretty serious.

So did President Monroe. Many meetings were held. Two exPresidents, Jefferson and Madison, were asked for their opinions. The Eighteenth Congress met on December 1, 1823, and the Presi

dent's message was received and read the following day. In the seventh paragraph Mr. Monroe told the Congress about the arrangements made with Russia for an amicable determination of her rights and interests on the northwestern coast of this continent, and added:

"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power.'

"In the thirty-ninth paragraph of the message, the President used the language here following:

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.'

"In these extracts from the message of seventy-two years ago is embodied the Monroe doctrine, so-called. It grew, as we have seen, out of a suggestion made by the greatest English statesman of the time, and it had his cordial approval. It was a very courageous declaration, all the circumstances considered. It astonished and impressed Europe. It accomplished its inmediate purpose. It has been shaping our policy and diplomacy ever since, as Mr. Olney has pointed out. A few distinguished public men beginning with Mr. John Quincy Adams have busied themselves with efforts to minimize it. They are dead; the Monroe doctrine has survived them. Like all living doctrines it is made up of letter and spirit, and the spirit is more important than the letter. George Canning's successor at the British foreign office now tells us that it is obsolete. It does not appear to be so in the view of the United States of America.”—The Courant (Rep.). Hartford, Conn.

A Question of Power, Not of Law.-"All argumentation about the Monroe doctrine as a part of international law, to be recognized as such by the whole family of nations,. is idle. The Monroe doctrine is a rule this country keeps for its own purposes. The maintenance of the Monroe doctrine and its construction and application to this or that case is not a question of law, but a question of power. If we are willing and also strong enough to maintain it in whatever shape against the adverse interests or pretensions of other nations, it will be maintained. If not, not. It is therefore useless to trouble ourselves or others about the formal recognition of the Monroe doctrine as a part of international law. The question turns now, as it will always do, upon a specific case, and we have to ask ourselves, in each instance, whether and how far we consider the safety and greatness of the country-for which

Mr. Cleveland makes his appeal-as involved in the case, and in what way we can protect this safety and greatness without unnecessarily disturbing the peace of the world.”— Editorial in Harper's Weekly.

Simply a Matter of Self-Defense. "There is no question of international law about it. We deem it for our interest to prevent any encroachment by Great Britain upon the territory of a South American country, and in order to do that we find it necessary to decide for ourselves what constitutes encroachment. Having decided for ourselves, we propose to enforce the decision. That is the doctrine. There is no principle of international law about it, except the principle of self-defense, we being the sole judges as to what self-defense requires. It may be, as Professor von Holst says, "dictatorship, pure and simple," but there it is, call it what you will.

"The British policy is to grab everything that can be got by browbeating, bullying, trickery, or any means short of war with a nation able to defend itself. Our policy is not to seize an acre against the will of its inhabitants, not to force our system of government upon any one who doesn't want it, nor to interfere anywhere outside of the Western hemisphere. It is simply to prevent any new encroachment upon the territory of any of the "three Americas" and the adjacent islands by any monarchical country of Europe.

"Whatever else may be said of it, this is undeniably a policy which looks to the maintenance of free institutions and the preservation instead of the disintegration and absorption of political organizations of whatever name or form.

"

'If it comes to war in pursuance of this policy we can appeal to the enlightened sentiment of mankind with much more confidence than Great Britain, which notoriously seeks to enlarge its territorial possessions with little regard for the rights of those whom it seeks to dispossess or rule.”—The Chronicle (Dem.), Chicago.

The Olney Doctrine, Not the Monroe Doctrine.—“Nothing can be more preposterous than the President's solemn assurance that the enforcement of the Olney doctrine in this case is important to our peace and safety as a nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. And yet upon the solemn proclamation of this absurdity by the President, uninformed and unthinking people, acting on a patriotic impulse, came to his support. They supposed they were sustaining the Monroe doctrine, when it was only the Olney doctrine. They imagined they were standing by their country, when they were really pushing along a third-term boom. The result of this wrong and this insensate folly is seen in the creation of a dangerous war fever here, in the excitement of a more perilous enthusiasm in Venezuela, in nearly solid union of the foreign powers against our position, and in a serious blow to our reviving business. In the light of all these facts the war message of the President was not a blunder but a crime."- The World (Dem.), New York.

President Cleveland has a Right to Formulate a Policy."President Cleveland has quite as good a right as had President Monroe to formulate a policy with reference to our relations with the South American republics. We see no reason why what The Evening Post rather sneeringly refers to in the language of one of its correspondents as "the Cleveland doctrine" should not be quite as respectable as the Monroe doctrine. The sole question now as in 1823 is whether or not it is consistent with American interests to allow Great Britain to absorb the Venezuelan republic.

"As we are not bound by the Monroe doctrine as an authority, neither are we limited by it. For instance, there is nothing in that principle, as it has usually been interpreted, which forbids the peaceable acquisition of territory on this continent by any European power. So far as the Monroe doctrine itself is concerned, there is no reason why Great Britain should not buy the whole of Venezuela, or Mexico either, if she could make satisfactory arrangements with the governments of those countries. The best authorities have held that there never was any intention of forbidding the peaceful and voluntary transfer of territory from a South American state to a European power. John Quincy Adams, who was Monroe's Secretary of State, when he himself became President, restated the doctrine on this point in a much milder form, and even in this form it was repudiated by the House of Representatives. And yet this country could, and would, ob