Page images
PDF

Democratic nominee, is still so virulently opposed to Mr. Cleveland that it is difficult to see how he can obtain the necessary votes in the convention to be nominated. That he has greater strength before the country than Judge Parker or any other democrat I believe, but the average Southern man is so narrow and so intensely prejudiced, that he is willing to lose the election rather than win it with Mr. Cleveland. The greatest fear of Mr. Roosevelt and his close advisers is that the Democratic Convention may do the sensible and unexpected and nominate Mr. Cleveland, and one of the President's strongest newspaper organs says: “It is a fact that many of President Roosevelt's closest friends are still convinced that Cleveland will be the Democratic nominee.” The Republicans have always shown themselves to be better political strategists than the Democrats, and the Republicans naturally conclude that the Democrats will do what they would do under similar circumstances; viz., assault their position with their heaviest artillery instead of attempting to make a breach with guns of light calibre. Evidently Mr. Shaw, the secretary of the treasury, fears Mr. Cleveland more than he fears any other man, because Mr. Shaw, who not infrequently does injudicious things, recently made a speech, after the merger decision, in which he called Mr. Cleveland severely to account for not having enforced the provisions of the Sherman anti-trust law against the trusts when he was President, for which Mr. Shaw has received severe newspaper castigation, those papers pointing out that Mr. Roosevelt and his friends cannot afford to treat Mr. Cleveland otherwise than with the respect to which he is entitled. “Is it not getting to be clearly apparent,” the Washington Post asks,

that, if Mr. Cleveland could be nominated by the Democratic National Convention, he would prove a much stronger candidate than any other of the possibilities now under serious consideration 7 Where is the Democrat who could equal him in winning support from the Republican side 2 Judge Parker, under the management of David B. Hill, would make little impression upon Republican solidity. Parker's lack of record, considered as an element of strength, might be more than offset by the redundancy and the quality of his sponsor's record. Cleveland has the confidence of the country to an extent unapproached by Hill's protégé—to an extent that could not be gained by that candidate during a campaign directed by Hill. . . . While conservative citizens of all parties—while all Americans who are not gone daft on Bryanism or some kindred craze—hope for wise action by the Democracy and a campaign that will not compel Democrats to bolt their party's ticket, there are conditions which menace that happy consummation. It may happen in 1904, as it did in 1896, t t the man who saved his country from the calamity of currency debasement will save it from the grasp of the forces of revolution and destruction 1

The Democrats are singularly unfortunate in having no great “issues” to present to the country, which makes it all the more important that they should have as a candidate a man who is “issue” enough in himself, and who is not a vague quantity who may stand for anything and have convictions on nothing. So far the only issue that the Democrats have made prominent is the charge brought against Mr. Roosevelt of being unsafe and erratic; in other words, the Democrats do not arraign the Republican party before the bar of public opinion, but simply place Mr. Roosevelt on trial. That is not a strong issue, and if the campaign is to hinge on the characteristics of the candidates, it would appear to be clearly indicated that against the reputed rashness and impetuosity and lack of balance displayed by Mr. Roosevelt should be opposed a candidate in whose judgment and deliberation and wisdom the country has full confidence.

Who would not be a promoter and a financier in America if he could always be as successful as Mr. Lawson, who testified in a suit that he and his friend Mr. Rogers—Mr. Rogers being one of Mr. Rockefeller's Standard Oil partners—went into a little deal and made profits of $46,000,ooo, or say, £9,200,000 ! After having made this remarkable declaration, remarkable enough in these days of haute finance to make the public ask whether Mr. Lawson, in the enthusiasm of the moment, had not generously added a cypher or two for picturesque effect, a few days later Mr. Lawson caused still greater surprise by saying that he underestimated his profits, and that $66,000,ooo, or £13,200,ooo, were nearer the mark. “Presumably, this was the Amalgamated Copper deal,” says one newspaper which reports Mr. Lawson, and it adds, “The Boston financier goes on to describe, at least by inference, the financing of the copper deal as a ‘record in high finance which for geometrical crookedness has never been equalled.’” Mr. Lawson promises startling revelations before he finishes. The public by this time is used to startling revelations in connection with its big deals and its flotation of huge companies, and perhaps would be disappointed if there were not the usual accompaniments. In his picturesque way Mr. Lawson says:

But as I knew the truth would be confined to the things closely related to this suit, I did not see how this case could develop into a startling lid-lifter, although I did know that others which would immediately follow could not proceed far without the years of accumulated germination of fraud and corrup

tion blowing the lid and the receptacle to which it was attached so far into space that it would require the passing of the present generation and the coming of new ones before any new lid could be so snugly adjusted to a new receptacle as to allow any kind of public plundering fermentation.

The public is naturally waiting with considerable interest the promised lid-lifting exhibition, which will be about all the public will get for a somewhat costly experience. Nobody, it will be noticed, has been sent to prison, or is in the least danger of having

to wear stripes. The thieves may quarrel, but honest men do not get their due.

A recent leader in the Daily Telegraph on the relations between Russia, Great Britain and the United States, which was cabled to this side, has been the text for much comment because it voices a feeling generally existing in this country at the present time.

All attempts to destroy the good feeling between Great Britain and the United States [says the Telegraph] must be abandoned. . . . If Russia is prepared to limit her demands to those she formulated in her different treaties with China, and if she is willing to disarm Port Arthur and Vladivostok, which can only be a menace to Japan, she can have peace to-morrow with the hearty concurrence of Great Britain and the United States. In this particular problem Germany's views are not a factor.

It has taken many years for Englishmen as well as Americans to understand that the aim of Russian diplomacy is to embitter the relations between England and the United States so that Russia might profit by this friction, but now that Russia's diplomacy is understood, the malevolent purpose is no more to be feared. The eyes of the American people have been opened. They are no longer blinded by false pretensions of friendship and honeyed words, and they are no longer content to be deluded by Russia perverting history forty years after the alleged OCCurrences.

Russia has played her hand well, as she understands the game; she has played it adroitly, boldly and unscrupulously, and she is now discovering that with nations as with individuals honesty is really the best and most profitable policy. I have always maintained, and on one or two occasions I believe I have demonstrated, that Russian diplomacy in its relations with Western nations, and especially with the United States, is the acme of stupidity and has shown an utter misconception of the American character and American methods. It has been only too obvious to persons in a position to know that Count Cassini not only deluded himself regarding the sentiment of America for Russia but of course misinformed his Government. It was a case of the

blind leading the blind, with the led believing that the leader was clear visioned and acute. Only recently Count Cassini asked a prominent man, who has always been conspicuously pro-Russian, to explain the meaning of the great wave of sentiment for Japan which has swept over the country. “Shall I tell you the truth 2" this man asked. Count Cassini said he wanted the truth and nothing else. “Then,” his friend replied, “the reason our people are now strongly pro-Japanese is because, to speak quite bluntly, they feel Russia has broken her word. She promised to evacuate Manchuria last October. Our people do not care so much about Manchuria, but for a government to make a promise and then to violate it seems to them a shocking thing.” Count Cassini protested that this was unjust. Russia had invested millions in Manchuria, and was entitled to protect her interests. “That may all be true,” was the answer, “but you should have thought about that before you promised to evacuate. Our people have no great love for metaphysics, and they are not profound logicians. To them a promise is a promise ; when it is given it is expected to be kept ; and among us the man who holds his word lightly loses his standing.” There are diplomats and public men in Washington who take a long look ahead who say that the events of the last few weeks will have consequences of the greatest importance. Realising now as she never realised before that the relations between England and the United States must necessarily always be more intimate than those between any other nations, Russia must either be the open foe of both, and thereby still further solidify them, or else ask to be admitted to their fellowship, which no doubt both nations would be willing to grant on the terms suggested by the Telegraph, which would ensure the peace of the world. A. MAURICE LOW.

THE PALAIS BOURBON AND ITS
INHABITANTS

No town in the world can present a fairer prospect than does Paris, seen on a summer morning from the Place de la Concorde. Where is there a nobler Avenue than the one which stretches away into the blue distance and finishes with the white arch of Napoleon's erection ?" Where can one see purer specimens of urban architecture than the mansions which form its northern side f What street so long, so straight, so striking in its uniformity as the Rue de Rivoli, which carries off the traffic of the square to the east 7 The stir of trees, the splashing fountains, the throng of people and ever-rolling carriages make a kaleidoscope of sound and sense which excites one unreasonably and rejoices ear and eye. Seen by moonlight, under the deep blue of a midnight sky, the effect is no less beautiful, but sadder, and one begins to ponder over the things these stones have seen. Sights tragic enough, for down that Avenue came the shrieking procession which led Louis XVI. and his Queen from Versailles to the Tuileries, virtually prisoners; in the square stood the guillotine, where fell the noblest heads in France; under the stones of the Rue de Rivoli lie thousands of rotting skeletons, the bodies of hastily buried citizens who perished in the awful days of the Commune. And the twin buildings whose classic façades look across the square at each other in calm and stately fashion, they also have known days of tumult and uproar; one bears the marks of bullet-wounds inflicted during the Commune ; both have had to compromise with the times in order to ensure survival. The building at the northern end is the Church of La Madeleine, that at the southern end, separated from the Place by the river Seine, is the Palais du Corps Législatif, or Palais Bourbon. This latter name has clung to the pile of stones, perhaps because memories of an older erection lend the modern one an

* Finished and inaugurated under Louis Philippe, 1836.

« PreviousContinue »