an American merchant marine is a most necessary and beneficent one.

A DEMOCRATIC VIEW.

THE HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE,

Mr. McDonald says much which cannot be successfully disputed, and which, I conceive, points to a conclusion differing radically from that which he has reached.

Every student knows that no such tariff as the present was thought of in our earlier history. No one then dreamed that in hours of tranquility the power of the Federal Government would be deliberately used to make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. An investigation of our Revenue Acts will prove that it was not until the year 1816, immediately after the close of the war of 1812, that a substantial effort was made in the protection line; and yet the enactments then adopted, with possibly one or two exceptions, were less protective than the Mills Bill. Formerly, whenever protection was spoken of, reference was had to real "infant industries." The bogus infantile creations of protective Republicanism had not been developed. Even Hamilton's idea was that while the payment of bounties for the encouragement of new industrial undertakings was advisable, their “continuance on manufactures long established was most questionable."

I challenge the correctness of Mr. McDonald's statement that the policy inaugurated in 1846 checked industrial growth, or had any other effect than to produce national progress. In the ten years between 1850 and 1860 our national wealth doubled. It has required thirty years of Republican rule to reach a similar result. In 1850, the per capita estimate of wealth was $261; in 1860, $384; twenty years later, there was an advance of only $3, $387. During the ten-year period above mentioned, farms appreciated 101⁄2 per cent.; during the next twenty years, but 21⁄2 per cent. In 1850 the capital employed in manufactures was $533,000,000 (round figures). In 1860, the amount had increased to $1,009,000,000. During that low-tariff decade the capital invested in manufactures almost doubled, and the same may be said regarding wages and the numbers employed. In the succeeding twenty years of high tariff the capital in manufactures but little more than doubled; while our commerce, which really prospered from 1850 to 1860, has been, as Mr. McDonald admits, in a sadly depressed condition ever since. It is true that in 1857 there was a financial panic, but this was due to causes not connected with tariff legislation. That very year, Charles Sumner, Hamilton Fish, and Henry Wilson voted for a reduced tariff. From 1850 to 1860, our exports increased 135 per cent. In the thirty succeeding years to 1890, the increase has been only 167 per cent.

Republicans blame the war for the decay of our shipping. But the war was over many years ago. There never was a country better situated for recuperation than the United States; and yet "six-sevenths of our foreign commerce are carried in foreign bottoms." We are promised that the McKinley Bill will cure all this, but the evil exists not only in spite of Republican legislation, but because of it. It has been possible for other countries to outstrip us and levy tribute on us, to capture our carrying trade, simply because of pernicious legislation. Wealthy Republican manufacturers meet, just before each session of Congress, and arrange for a new infant industry whose continua growth will bring about individual aggrandizement as the result of general taxation. These infants are to remain forever unweaned. They are not destined for death, or even maturity. It is aggravating to a patriotic American to see his Government adopting a policy which must retard the growth of his country.

The claim that reciprocity is reducing our trade-losses witn the South American countries is strongly confirmatory of the position I have taken. It was not thought of until Mr. Blaine stamped it on the McKinley Bill and declared that the time had come when the American producer must get some benefit. Reciprocity merely gives us a taste of the benefits of freer trade.

IN.

PARTY RULE IN THE UNITED STATES.
ALBERT STICKNEY.

American Journal of Politics, New York, October.

N the minds of the men of 1787, who framed the Constitution of the United States, one idea stood out more strongly than any other. The intention was that this Government should be a government by the people, that

1. The people should choose their own rulers.

2. The people's offices should be used only in the people's service.

The result has been a government by party.

I. Party has chosen the people's rulers.

2. The people's offices have been used in the service of the party.

The interests of the people have been sacrificed by our public servants to the needs of the party. Party did not at once get its full growth. Able men wished to serve the people under the Government; and the people wished to have their services. It took many years for party politics to drive our best men from public life, where they wished to be. But the system began its work early. The abuses began as soon as parties got their existence. In the earliest days of party history, party men acted on true party principles. They used the people's offices to pay for party services. They used official power for party ends.

In theory and in law, the people elect their rulers. In fact, these rulers are not elected by the people, but are appointed by the party leaders. The real working of the Government is controlled, not by the officials whom the people nominally elect, but by the party managers who are the real appointing. power. And these managers hold their power in the State, not for any short term of years, but without any limit whatever as to time, simply until tyranny becomes unbearable, and we have a peaceful revolution at the polls.

The fathers established, as they thought, a true republica government of the people, for the people, by the people. They established, as a matter of fact, a powerful oligarchy, a tyranny of the people, by party, for party. They kept, as they thought, the real control of the Government. They kept, as a matter of fact, nothing but a right of peaceful revolution. Elsewhere tyranny and revolution both violate the law; with us they both follow it. Often, before our time, revolution has resulted only in a change of tyrants; with us it is still the We rebel against the tyranny of one party; we simply place ourselves under the rule of the other party, and then again go through the same cycle of tyranny and revolt.

same.

We have had the election of rulers taken from us by party oligarchies. We have had the people's money stolen and their lives wasted by officers who should have guarded us from harm.. We have had our courts of justice used to rob honest men and. open prison doors to convicted thieves.

Why is it that we no longer have the same class of men as. of old in public place? How does it happen that our public men are not as able and upright as those of former years? For, without imagining all the glory to have passed from the earth, it will be generally admitted that there has been a falling off in the character of the men in our public service.

This is only another effect of party rule. No man can long hold office under our Government now unless he will sacrifice the people's interests to the interests of party. Party leaders want pliant men who will serve party, rather than honest men who will serve only the people. The men they cannot control and use they drive out of public life. We have had notably three Presidents-Lincoln, Grant, and Hayes-each of whom, as. most men will agree, took office with the purpose of always. serving the people without regard to the interests of party. They all at last gave themselves more or less completely to the control of party men. So long as they tried to do their simple duty to the people, they found themselves in the midst of ene

mies, without friends. They had to surrender. To resist would take strength more than human.

We have in this country developed not only parties, but enormous party machinery for the mere purpose of carrying elections-a machinery that is intricate, costly, powerful, and tyrannical. The man in public place in these days, in this country, must be, not a statesman, but a man of skill and capacity in manipulating this election machinery. Party organizations naturally and certainly become organizations of men combined and working together to secure their own election to the different places under the Government. It becomes, try to disguise it as we may, a system of trading in office. Parties do not elect men to put into action certain principles; they use principles as battle cries to elect certain men. is not only present practice; it is theory also.

This

Parties and party contests make it impossible to get from the people their calm, wise thought and action. In party contests men do not think over measures; they fight for candidates. We have strife, not deliberation.

Our Senators and Representatives should reason together and give us the best results of their combined wisdom. That is not what they do. Every measure is made a 'party ques. tion." If the Administration party brings forward a wise measure, the opposition party, if it dare, fights it for fear their enemies may gain votes by having done the people good service.

But when measures are once decided, surely no one can claim that party strife as to those measures should go on unceasingly. But it never ends. No question is ever at rest. But it is in time of war, when a people should be united, when they should show an unbroken front to the enemy, that the greatest evils from party have appeared. In every time of danger that the people of the United States have yet had, party has nearly ruined us.

Why is it that our best and ablest men do not take a healthy interest in the affairs of our Government? They are kept out by the party leaders, They try again and again for recognition, and they fail. What has at times seemed indifference is the despair of repeated defeat. Party controls the selection of our public servants, and controls their actions. I believe all this can be changed. There is somewhere a remedy for this state of things. When it is found, the people will apply it.

MEDITERRANEAN POLITICS.
Edinburgh Review, October.

HE persistence of the importance of the Mediterranean

THE

may be traced to a cause by no means obscure: viz., the expansion of modern States beyond what might appear to be their natural limits. Had France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or Great Britain been content to remain confined to the territories which those designations in strictness denote, the importance of the Mediterranean would, no doubt, still be considerable; but it would be chiefly local and much inferior to what it actually is. Each of the Continental States named, either has outlying possessions, or cherishes hopes of territorial expansion, on the non-European side of this great inland sea and its appendages. The Mediterranean interests of Great Britain are of a different kind; but their magnitude is indisputable, though the elements of which they are composed are too often inadequately appreciated.

The position in the Mediterranean at present differs from that which existed during any earlier period of modern history -if the term be permissible. Whatever she may become in future years, Spain does not now count amongst the leading naval powers. France is seated in Africa, and has absorbed a great stretch of littoral which in former contests between Europeans was always virtually neutral. In the central, and strategically the most commanding, situation there is now a united Italy wielding forces both naval and military which justify her claim to be included amongst the great Powers.

Further East we find Austria now appearing as a maritime State with a respectable fleet. Turkey has shrunk to a shadow of her former self; whilst a whole series of independent monarchies have been formed of the provinces detached from her. It need not be specially urged that the decay of the Ottoman Empire as a Mediterranean factor is a matter of grave international importance. Russia has crept further and further round the eastern end of the Black Sea till she has thrust herself into Armenia. England holds not only Gibraltar, but the other great naval fortress of Malta as well, and is hampered rather than strengthened by the possession of Cyprus. It will be seen at once how greatly these conditions differ from those which prevailed in the time of Charles V., or even of Napoleon. The old phrase, "the balance of power in Europe," is not wholly obsolete. It merely needs a slight amendment to bring it up to date. The words should run now, "the balance of power in the Mediterranean." What has been called "the rising belief in the power of navies" is the inarticulate expression of a widespread conviction that preeminence on the Continent is of less moment to the world at large than preeminence on the sea. The international "pole" has moved from central Europe, and is now situated on or near a line drawn from Gibraltar to Alexandretta. "Equilibrium in the Mediterranean" is a phrase pretty often used in Germany, in Austria, and in Italy, where it is recognized as fully as in England that the equilibrium would be upset should disaster overtake the Italian navy. Should this happen, one great obstacle to the conversion of the Mediterranean into a French lake would be removed, though even then the conversion would be far from a certainty. A French journal (La Marine Française, July, 1892) has recently published what professes to be a report of a conversation between a French and an Italian naval officer, in the course of which the Italian stated that his country's fleet would not hesitate to attack the French, even if the latter were superior in strength. This, of course, may be simply the opinion of a solitary individual; but the prominence given in France to views of the same kind shows that the French, at all events, think that this rash policy is likely to be pursued in the event of war. Even on the assumption that the Italians gain a victory, it is not clear that they will derive any considerable advantage from it. They will certainly not be able to undertake and carry through a distant offensive campaign. It is true that they will have prevented the invasion of their country by sea; but this they can prevent just as well, and at much less risk, by keeping their fleet intact in a suitable position.

To make a French lake of the Mediterranean, it would not be necessary for France to obtain exclusive possession of that sea-exclusive possession, by the way, being that which no nation since the days of the Romans has obtained as to any sea. An overwhelming predominance would suffice, so that all other nations would have to act at the mere will and pleasure of the French. A predominance of this character cannot be hoped for as long as Italy remains a considerable naval power; and even if she were to cease to be such a power, it is all but certain that French aspirations would be brought little nearer to their object. No doubt the acquisition of territory in North Africa on the south side of the sea, in addition to that of the mother country on the north side, was prompted by a desire to secure, and is supposed to have facilitated the securing of impregnable superiority in the western basin. The eagerness of the French to add Tunis to Algeria, and to encroach towards the west on the empire of Morocco, shows that they have not realized how seriously extensions of territory must diminish their relative naval strength. To judge from the angry remonstrances which their actions and supposed intentions have aroused in Germany and Italy, or, to put it more correctly, which newspaper writers declare to have been aroused in those countries, their Continental neighbors have not realized it any more than the French themselves.

THE TRUTH ABOUT UGANDA.* THE REVEREND KENELM VAUGHAN,

THE

Amant.

The Month, London, October.

HE first Catholic missionary that entered the Kingdom of Uganda was Father Lourdel, accompanied by Brother The Protestant missionaries who had been sent out there the year before (1878), owing to Stanley's challenge, did their utmost to persuade Mtésa, the King of Uganda, to forbid them from settling in his kingdom. For this purpose the Rev. Mr. Mackay visited the king, and told him that the Catholics had no knowledge of God, and adored images. Besides, he added, the French hate kings, "They killed their own king years ago, and I won't answer for your life if you let them into your kingdom."

The King was, however, so touched by the truth of Father Lourdel's teaching that he give orders for thirty-five boats to be sent to the south of the lake to fetch up the Catholic missionaries, who reached Port Mtéhi and entered that land of darkness with the light of faith on June 17th. From that day the Catholic missionaries, with Mgr. Livinhac at their head, began to sow the seed of God's Word, and to reap an abundant harvest, having converted, during the ten years, fifty thousand pagan souls. But this glorious harvest was accompanied by many trials and sufferings which may all be classed under three heads.

1. Their persecution by the natives. 2. Their persecution by the Mahometans. 3. Their persecution by the Protestants. 1. In 1886, when King Mtésa, who had a thousand wives, came to know that the Catholic missionaries condemned polygamy and injustice, the traditional appanage of his royalty, he banished the priests, and put to death two hundred native Christians. 2. Two years afterwards the Mahometans, ten thousand in number, enraged at the progress of the Catholic religion, dethroned King Mwanga, Mtésa's successor, and plundered and massacred the Christians. They cast Catholic and Protestant missionaries into one common prison. The Mussulmans were defeated, and Mwanga replaced on his throne. 3. In 1892, a third persecution broke out, the most terrible of all. It was a persecution of Protestants against Catholics, of Captain Lugard and his Protestant adherents against Bishop Hirth, the Vicar Apostolic of the Nyanza region, and his Catholic people. Captain Lugard is a paid agent of the East African Company. He was sent in 1890 by the directors of the Company from Mombasa with a troop of Soudanese soldiers to subject to this trading society the kingdom of Uganda, to enrich it by commercial enterprises and speculations, to resist the power and progress of the Catholic Church, and to Protestantize the country. Such were the real, although not the expressed, objects of his coming to the country.

In January last, Captain Lugard returned from Unyoro to Uganda with a band of seven hundred to eight hundred men and a supply of rifles and Maxim guns, determined, it seems, now that he had the material weapons and physical force on his side to crush out Catholicity in favor of Protestant influence; and the trading company, determined to secure a mone opoly for themselves, entered into an alliance with the Mahometans and resolved to force the Catholics into an open collision, and compel the King either practically to forfeit his authority and throw himself into the arms of the Protestants, or else venture on a battle with Lugard's disciplined force.

At this crisis, when Anarchy had been reigning more than a fortnight, a Catholic chief, named Mongolaba, killed a Protestant chief, Muwanika, in self-deferise. Captain Lugard demanded that Mongolaba be condemned for murder. Mwanga investigated the charge, and held the killing justifiable. Both * See also THE LITERARY DIGEST, Vol. V., p. 312.

sides now collected in force and Captain Lugard demanded the surrender of Mongolaha. The result was a battle in which the Catholics were defeated by the newly imported

weapons.

We omit the account of the perils to which the Bishop and the white fathers were exposed, and their narrow escape and final shelter, in order to save their lives, in the Fort occupied by Captain Lugard and the Protestants. Meanwhile King Mwanga had filed from his palace and taken refuge on the island. Thereupon Captain Lugard, according to his own. story, tried to bring him back, but was prevented by Mgr. Hirth. This is probably true, for he considered that Captain and, knowing as he did, that the mass of the people would be Lugard's terms would have been fatal to the Catholic interest, faithful to their King, he advised him to remain on the island until he could make better terms for the Catholics.

According to Lugard's account, the Catholics made an attack on a Protestant chief near the lake, and burnt his place. On the 30th, while negotiations were still pending, Captain Lugard assailed the place and was guilty of a terrible massacre. The King fled southwards and the missionaries with him. Humanly speaking, all our hopes seem destroyed.

The troubles of Uganda," says Marquis Bonchamp, "have been a vast Anglican Saint Bartholomew's day." Lugard can disavow it, but he laid out for himself a certain stroke of policy, and he has attained his end. The Marquis, also, and Doctor Moloney, assured the writer of this article that the general belief of unbiased men throughout Central Africa and in Zanzibar is that Captain Lugard and his Protestant party are responsible for the Uganda outrages. Until Captain Lugard came among us, the Catholics and Protestants lived on terms of Christian charity. It was he who sowed the seeds of discord and kindled the flames of civil war.

SOCIOLOGICAL.

ARBITRATION IN STRIKES.
PAUL LEROY-BEAULIEU.

L'Economiste Français, Paris, October 22.

N the Carmaux strike the French Government does not

not recognizing its chief duty-a duty more imperative than any other-the duty of assuring liberty of work, of protecting the non-strikers.

The incompetency of the government of our country is strikingly apparent, when contrasted with government in the United States. How thoroughly the Republic on the other side of the Atlantic understands its business was proved a few months ago, during the Homestead strikes, when it compelled the strikers to respect the liberty of the workmen engaged in place of the strikers by the Andrew Carnegie company. Why does not government in France act like government in America? The latter acts with resolution and impartiality, and that is the only way to prevent new difficulties arising everywhere. In the United States, government does not undertake to decide which side is right and which is wrong, when a strike takes place; it perceives that to pass upon such a question is not at all within the province of government; it simply and purely prevents any attack on property and personal liberty; and it is certain that by such a course, which protects the rights of all, the strife will have many more chances of ending than if the Government becomes mixed up with it.

It ought to be declared clearly and unhesitatingly the pretension of Government to appoint itself conciliator and arbitrator in a strike is nonsensical.

The Deputies have under consideration, and are not unlikely to pass, a law in regard to arbitration in strikes. Arbitration

will be obligatory in the case of mines, and, not improbably, it will be made obligatory in the case of railways and all associations which have been granted any privilege whatever by the Government, the departments, or the municipalities.

Admit, if you choose, that arbitration is a fine thing, useful in certain cases; to-day it is the fashion; it is like the remedy, salicylate, fifteen years ago, like antipyrine, five years ago, like cocaine, or anything you may name at the present time.

Arbitration has some virtue; but has it virtue in all cases? Alas! that is far from probable. Private persons, even the most honest and intelligent, in the differences they may have with each other, distrust arbitration. It would be easy for them, by having recourse to arbitration, to save the larger portion of the enormous expense and delays of justice. Yet for the most part recourse is not had to arbitration.

The reason of this is that everyone mistrusts arbitration and still more, arbitrators. Every man who feels sure that he has right on his side, however pacifically inclined he may be, prefers to go to law than to trust to arbitrators. Many of you who read me must have often had differences with others; in how many cases have you proposed arbitration ? And where, by chance, you have submitted some differences to arbitration, on account of other considerations, such as the difference being between relations, or friends, or neighbors, or partners, have you not invariably thought that the arbitrator decided the matter very badly?

Great as may be the theoretical merits of arbitration, in practice it betrays a defect almost irremediable, and which prevents it from getting a firm foothold in human transactions. That defect is the disposition of all arbitrators, according to a vulgar phrase, "to cut the pear in two." Arbitration is a jurisdiction which, by its very nature, is irresolute and pusillanimous; and which compels those who have rights to make concessions; in a word, arbitration is, by virtue of its inherent weakness, almost always opposed to true right. This is the reason for arbitration appearing to many serious men like a sort of parcdy of justice, like a return to the arbitrary power of the Turkish cadi. This again is the reason for arbitration being little used in the world. No one wants anything to do with it in differences between private individuals. It is accepted in controversies of minor importance and even then, generally, it goes against the grain; it is rejected in differences of any considerable importance.

If some day strikes become rarer, that will not be at all the result of submitting them to arbitration. Such infrequency of strikes will be due to a perception of the suffering which they cause, to the uncertainty of their outcome; exactly, as in the case of war, what postpones it, what renders it every day more improbable, is the knowledge each Power has of the enormous sacrifices imposed by war and the uncertainty of its results.

It

However that may be, let laws be made about arbitration, since it is the fashion. We do not oppose such a course. is necessary to amuse the public with pills which are thought to cure everything, but which, in general, have no effect, When, however, it is proposed to make arbitration obligatory in certain classes of enterprises, we do not comprehend what is meant thereby. Obligatory arbitration is a violation of language itself; whoever mentions an arbitrator, includes in that word reciprocal consent. Where that does not occur, it is no longer arbitration, it is tyranny, it is the handing over the rights and liberty of one of the parties, the employers, to an absolute government, for the employers can be compelled to obey the sentence of the arbitrator and the workmen cannot be compelled.

In place of thinking that words or formulas have power to conciliate and to pacify, it would be far simpler, more benevolent, more farsighted, to be firm, to repress disorders, to guarantee liberty of work, to see that mayors aud Deputies obey general laws and regulations, or, in other words, practice equality.

REGENERATION AS A FORCE IN REFORM MOVEMENTS.

THE REVEREND C. M. MORSE.

Methodist Review, New York, November-December.

TRU

RUE reform in every department of society must begin with the abolition of unrighteousness (that which is not right) and the recognition of strict and impartial justice in all relations between man and man. The natural heart craves ease, possessions, and power, and seeks the easiest and speediest means of attaining them, and without regard to the rights of others. Covetousness operates along distinctly marked lines; it takes possession by force of arms, by strength of custom, and by power of legislation, of that which rightfully belongs to others. The outcome is the division of mankind into two classes, the robbers and the despoiled.

The agencies employed by covetousness lie open to the view of every thinker. All of the material bounty which God provides for the race exists in the land. Nature is the storehouse in which all wealth is deposited. If a few men, or a class of men, can obtain possession of the storehouse they have their fellows at their mercy, and may compel them to toil, as the sons of Israel worked for the Egyptians. Granting that the few, or the class, have the right to hold the land in private ownership, it follows that they have the right to collect such rents, or tribute for the right to live, as they may demand, or as the sufferings of humanity will induce them to yield. When, as in our day, seven-tenths of the population are landless, and cannot go to the storehouse of nature to earn subsistence, unless with the consent of the self-constituted owners of the storehouse, the competition of the unemployed will reduce wages to the starvation point.

Again, the money of the country is a creation of law. Its power for good or evil is in its legal-tender functions. All debts and taxes have to be paid in lawful money. Consequently business cannot be done without the agency of money. But money is limited in its volume; it gets into possession of the few, who levy a tribute for use (interest) which is always as heavy as business can bear. Hence, under the laws of demand and competition, the profits of business, in the end, find their way into the pockets of the land-owner and the money-owner. In the third place, there are legal methods of gain which are unjust. A man possessing only muscle cannot compete against a man or corporation backed by millions. Every opportunity for money-making, whether by legitimate occupations of trade, by the possession of means, or by speculation, is taken up by the capitalist, and the end of labor is to enrich not itself but the employer, the company, the corporation. But this is of trifling importance compared with graver evils; capital influences legislation, courts, the professions, and the Press to work in its interests. Tariff laws, railway franchises, charters, and statutory enactments, all operate for the benefit of special classes, and create a wealth-aristocracy, with its base resting on the shoulders of the laboring class, which produces all the wealth.

tems.

Now, it so happens that the strongest impulse of human nature is love of right-doing, fair play, justice. It is more powerful than loyalty to institutions or love of religious sysThe ordinary man is intelligent; when he feels that he is imposed upon he seeks for the cause and source of the imposition, and when discovered revolts against them; and, knowing the rightness of his cause, he repudiates every institution, even the Church, which justifies his opponent. The Church is the exponent of morals, and when its influence is weakened or dissipated, the masses of the people will indulge their appetencies; and even the heroic-spirited prohibitionist will find his way effectually blocked.

Further, the three agencies of covetousness and injustice which I have named are the three leading questions of reform before the people. England must settle the question of land