the question of negro rule can be settled appears to the Southern white to lie in the negro's disenfranchisement. To secure this result three methods only seem to offer themselves, viz. the negro must be frightened away from the polls; else he must be forcibly resisted when he undertakes to deposit his ballot; or his ballot must be destroyed or nullified. The first method is now unhappily chosen.

"At the same time," remarked a careful observer, "the casting and the counting of the ballot are his constitutional rights; and so long as these are denied him there is a confession that our vaunted scheme of universal suffrage is a failure and a farce."

It would be well if some of the fast-dwindling band of partisan zealots of the North of America were to take their stand, not upon their own vain imaginings, but upon the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln himself, shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War.

"I will say," said he, "that I am not, nor have ever been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior; and I, as much as any other man, am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white man."

"1

1 Speech at Charlestown, Illinois, September 18th, 1858.

CHAPTER XIV

THE NEW POLITICS

ARE there not two great forces at work in America now, as they were at work in England in the "seventies" ?— Socialism, the chief ingredient of populism and Bryanism; and Imperialism, which involves class and militarism? If so, it demonstrates that America is a body politic such as we are, and is not immune from the diseasesor shall we say external symptoms of growth?-which visit other nations. Socialism and Republicanism, with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain among the cohorts, looked very irresistible thirty years ago, and Imperialism after Mr. Gladstone's onslaughts appeared a forlorn hope. But just as surely as Socialism will subside in Germany, as anti-clericalism and anti-semitism will dwindle in France, and as these forces may yet change the face of Spainso will the American Republic have its time of internal collision and antagonism: "According to the state of the blood, so will the issue be," is a surgical aphorism. According to the blood of the State so will the issue be in politics. The American organism is not yet healthy, through its veins a turbid fluid courses, it is subject to the wild and morbid impulses of youth, it does not know its own mind, it is not quite at moral

unity with itself; but it is strong of arm and tumultuous of head, and full of enthusiasms and beliefs.

A new spirit has lately informed its politics. Since 1898 we observe a marked tendency to raise the whole tone of public life. Public interest has become centred in Imperial matters, in the upbuilding of international commerce, in the work of establishing peace and orderly government in the outlying portions of the Empire. It has less to spare for the local political crank with his petty programme, or the local boss in his wire-pulling. With the decrease of State power, this was inevitable; with the growing establishment of a Civil Service on European lines, the professional politician class must ultimately languish.

Less than five years ago there was no fundamental difference in the tenets of the two great political parties. It was in vain that Mr. Bryan and his friends tried to foist the Silver Question upon the Democratic party; it did not touch the feelings or emotions of the people; it left their moral sense cold. But by the war with Spain, American politics were at last provided with a real and vital issue. Expansion" and " Imperialism " became the watchwords of the Republican party. At the same time it ran athwart existing party lines: there were adhesions here, objections there; a new school of thought seemingly became built up, and both parties became considerably altered in complexion. In Massachusetts, the two Senators, both Republicans, each prominent in the councils of his party, occupied diametrically opposed positions on the question of Imperialism. As in Britain, the Opposition, divided against itself, dwindled into insignificance; as in England, neither

party is yet able to adjust itself to the new wants, and the new war-cries.' Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats have never been quite the same thing, because the party has an altogether different social meaning in the two sections. But take away that social significance-disenfranchise the negro, and a large part of the Southern Democracy would undoubtedly go over to the Republican party. The unfortunate Democratics, realizing the desperate straits to which they have been reduced by the bosses who rebelled against Mr. Cleveland in 1896, and sold themselves to the Bryanites, or silver party, are making a serious effort to redeem themselves. The two parties are diametrically opposed on the question of Imperialism; and they also hold not less divergent views on the subject of a standing army, or "militarism," as the Democrats call it. Here is the official utterance of the party on the increase in the military establishment

"We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad, and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm, which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace-loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and a constant menace to their liberties. A small standing army, and a well-disciplined State militia are amply sufficient in time of peace. This republic has no place for a vast military service and conscription.

1 It is curious to note how party lines can, on great occasions, now be obliterated in America. This was not formerly the case. In the Civil War, Republicans and Democrats were arranged against each other in almost solid phalanxes, because the abolition of slavery was the cardinal principle of the Republican party alone. But now when any great question arises which concerns the country's outside relations, the President has only to speak, and he finds a response from a sympathetic people.

When the nation is in danger the volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever an element of strength and safety. For the first time in our history and coeval with the Philippine conquest, has there been a wholesale departure from our time-honoured and approved system of volunteer organization. We denounce it as un-American, undemocratic, and unrepublican, and as a subversion of the ancient and fixed principles of a free people."

As with Imperialism and militarism, so do Trusts come in for scathing criticism. The Republican party also indulges in a condemnation of Trusts, and "favours such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and promote competition, and secure the rights of producers, labourers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.' But very

few of the leading members of the party are said to regard this seriously; for the Republican managers are themselves the aiders and abettors of the Trust system. The attempt made in Congress a few years ago to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing Trusts has been called a "transparent humbug."

It is amusing to us to see the Republicans indulge themselves in self-laudation over the war with Spain.1

1 Extract from the Republican Platform: "In accepting by the Treaty of Paris the just responsibility of our victories in the Spanish war, the President and the Senate won the undoubted approval of the American people. No other course was possible than to destroy Spain's sovereignty throughout the West Indies and the Philippine Islands. That course created our responsibility before the world, and with the unorganized population whom our intervention had freed from Spain, to provide for the maintenance of law and order, and for the establishment of good government, and for the performance of international obligations. Our authority could not be less than our responsibility, and wherever sovereign rights were extended it became the