as spontaneously whenever either of these writers wishes to refer to his native country as it comes with rarity and reluctance in the American essayists and novelists after the Civil War.1 The exact moment when our American cousin began to suspect his exclusive right to the term "America" is difficult to ascertain. Some would hasten to put it at the period of the Civil War, and the subsequent insistence upon the term "United States" in the national speech and literature as a flaunting in the face of those who would not have wept to see them dis-united. But it would seem as if the real significance of “ America” as a national epithet, as national as Brazil to the Brazilians, or as "Deutschland to the Germans after 1870, had passed out of people's minds in the republic, they dwelling more on the word or phrase which described their federate character than that more important word which denoted their country on the map. For the South Carolinians, the Virginians, the Mississippians and the rest, when they came, in 1860, to the task of creating a separate nation, ventured no farther afield in the way of national title than "Confederate States of America," a distinction which is not to Europeans much clearer than if, as a result of civil war in these islands, a "Confederated Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" should rise in opposition to the one at present happily existing. It is significant that the critical period coincided with the growth of our American cousins' continental neighbours, Canada and Mexico.2 Probably the reason why the term was in abeyance for so long a period after the Civil War was the great expansion of the republic. A shoal of new States being added, all of which 1 Thus, Hon. John Jay (in opposition to Winsor, who erroneously uses the term) invariably employs the current phrase, as, "Vergennes argued that the fisheries America had renounced with the British Crown . . . Vergennes had ulterior reasons for keeping America out of the fisheries, the nursery of seamen, for he did not wish America to become a naval power.-See "Winsor," vol. vii. p. 90. 2 Certainly since the writing of his national anthem, whose title is " America," and which begins "My Country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of Liberty, took pride in being added to the Union. For to the people of the territories, it was a reproach not to belong to "the States." There were no States between Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, so that one can understand how the custom of speaking exclusively of the United States became general in the West.1 2 Then again the terms for the Continent and the country are undoubtedly confusing. Those familiar with manners and colloquialisms in the States are aware that for some thirty years prior to 1898, while the adjective "American" has been in general use, the noun "America" has been extremely rare. Surprising as it may be to Englishmen to be told the fact, one might, up to that annus mirabilis, have travelled five thousand miles and read a hundred books and newspapers without ever having once come across it; "United States" being almost invariably the term employed by the American for his own country whether at home or abroad. In times past the phrase "United States " in its application to America has lain open to the charge of deep, and even humiliating obscurity. It is not so long ago that "United States" received rather a rude shock. An American tourist presenting himself at the Vatican with an intimation that he hailed from the "United States," was asked by an official of the Papal Court "Columbia, Mexico, Brazil, America, or Chile?" a collection of names and nationalities not flattering to Yankee 3 pride. Their amiable conceit in persistently referring to their country as "the Republic," as though there was no other 1 In those days when west of the Rocky Mountains, and even east, there were no "States" but only "territories," the inhabitants of those regions not yet admitted to the full privileges of the Union always spoke of going east as going to "the States." 2 There are those who continue to speak of the "American Continent." Which is it? Surely they do not mean to apply the term to both Continents. * The popularization of the term "Yankee" amongst the Americans, east and west, north and south, is another result of the Hispano-American conflict, The Spaniards threw it at the Americans as an insult; the latter, even the Southerners, accepted it with the best grace in the world. Yankee is, of course. an Indian corruption of Anglais. republic, has already been likened by M. Paul Bourget to the Chinese failing in speaking of "the Empire" as though there were no other empires. The Chinese, indeed, in their arrogance, have never found any need for any particular national designation for themselves, "China" and "Chinese" being terms of Occidental invention. Since the war with Spain, the best speakers and writers in the States have employed with freedom a term which, though long familiar and frequent in these isles, the Americans themselves have very carefully avoided.1 1 Having thus awakened to the fact of their exclusive title, it is amusing to note the alacrity with which they laid hold of it, and how quick Americans are to resent the imputation that they have no distinctive name amongst the nations. In the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament in 1902, reference was made not to "America," or America," or "The United States of America," as is usual, but to "United States" tout court. This, one would have supposed, would have been taken by Americans as a compliment. Nevertheless one alert American could not suffer this to pass unchallenged, but wrote to Mr. Balfour in this strain— "SIR "Will you permit me to inquire on behalf of a number of American citizens, resident in London, and admirers of England and English institutions, why, in the King's Speech of yesterday, the name of America was pointedly omitted in referring to our country? "Is it not recognized that America is our national designation: North America and South America being the titles of Continents ? "The use of the full title in the case of Brazil renders the omission all the more significant. "I have read your letter of the 17th with some surprise, as it seems to imply that the omission of the words 'of America' from the King's Speech was intended to be derogatory to your country. I need not say that this is a complete delusion. The words United States' taken by themselves, without further qualification, have, with us, invariable reference to the great republic of which you are a citizen. There may be, and are, other United States,' but that is the United States par excellence. "Yours faithfully, "ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR." On the heels of this Dr. F. Pinto de Luz wrote to The Times to deprecate a growing practice in this country, which he asserted is extremely offensive to Nevertheless, United States of America will probably continue to be with us, the United States par excellence, as the British Premier says. The American Government have given their own proper national title slender official countenance; nor has the term figured for several decades in the messages of the United States Presidents to the United States Congress. President Roosevelt, in its writings, having made a practice of using the term America,1 before he was driven by virtue of his office to employ the official Federal title, which is, only after all, inadequate when addressing foreign nations.2 Brazilians, of employing the term United States as if it referred solely to the republic of the United States of America. "The Federal designation-United States-was (he says) adopted by us in 1889 without any apprehension that it would thereby confuse the general titles previously assumed by the republics of America and Colombia. I trust it is not too late to point out to Englishmen and to all Europeans-that such Federal designation-United Statesis merely intended for local and domestic purposes in each of the republics named, and not the national title, certainly not the exclusive possession, of a single one abroad.” 1 Thus, he writes, "America will become greater than any empire," etc."The Strenuous Life," 69. 2 Yet the difficulties under which the legal authorities have been labouring, owing to this misapprehension of nomenclature, are numerous. Take a recent decision of the Supreme Court (1901), where it is declared that the existing Federal constitution was made for the United States, by which term we understand the States, whose people united to form the Constitution, and such as have since been admitted to the Union upon an equality with them. Had the counsel of Hamilton been followed, and the term "America" been officially used, how much more comprehensible would be the situation? ន APPENDIX II THE NEW TRUSTS AND THEIR MAKERS If the physiology of the Trust is yet far from being thoroughly understood, the personality and methods of the Trust makers is less so. Of the Trust system generally, it may be said that, despite the many powerful and plausible arguments used in its defence, these have hardly dispersed the many misgivings in the minds of publicists concerning a system which offers one of the sternest problems which the future has in store for the United States of America. Not the least significant or interesting feature of the Trust movement has been the rapidity with which it has developed from comparatively moderate beginnings thirty years ago to its present position to-day, when the industrial combinations in America represent a capital of one billion two hundred millions sterling; while during the single year 1899 Trusts were formed to the extent of two billion dollars, which is a sum in excess of the total currency in circulation amongst seventy millions of people. But the end is not yet, although the first stage of Trust development may be said to have concluded; it now remains for the Trusts, which have swallowed up all separate industries and destroyed competition, to devour themselves-in other words, for the "consolidations" to consolidate. The goal of this movement, if not checked by some obstacle one cannot yet foresee, would appear obviously to lie in the direction of an industrial monarchy or oligarchy, in which one man or a handful of men will control, not as now a million and a half or two |