Practically all the timber in China is sawed up in In one thing these pictures are in utter discord with the books written about China, though the books are true enough. The books spell misery; the pictures, contentment. Which is right? Are they both right? Yes. In such an array of complex phenomena as one finds in China. there is pretty much of the good, bad and indifferent. Continuous and omnipresent poverty, galling and harassing; exacting and enslaving superstition; a family structure that is the antithesis of comfort, even to the Chinese; the lack of physical comforts; the continual menace of ruin by flood, famine or lawsuit; all of these assail the wall of Chinese patience and EFFECTIVE, IF NOT GRACEFUL The Chinese way of carrying hogs contentment in vain. For in this matter of contentment the Chinese is superlative. Whether he must wait three hours for his dinner, or until to-morrow, or just starve to death, is of little matter. Cheer up, the worst is yet to come, is his philosophy. With the occidental mind the obtrusive part of the fact is that the worst is coming; with this Oriental, that it has not arrived! What a boon this is can be grasped only by one who has seen China. The unit of Chinese life is not the individual, but the family. When the sons marry they bring their wives home to hustle in the paternal household. With several married sons, tically the Republic of Panama. The restrictive policy of the management of this road for fifty years through the apparent necessity of charging exorbitant rates for the transportation of passengers and merchandise, operated to prevent local development, as well as to limit seriously the through commerce which the railroad was created to foster. The construction of a waterway connecting the two oceans and throwing this route open to the world on equal terms will undoubtedly in years to come create a flow of commerce through its gateway that will greatly stimulate and develop the prosperity of the entire Republic of Panama. The inevitable destiny of this country will surely cause it to become one of the brightest stars among the nations of South. America. The fact that Panama and Colon will be the last ports of call for the world's commerce, moving in either direction for long ocean distances, will create the necessity for vast depots of shipping supplies for distribution at these points, and will afford the means, if made a free zone, for the interchange of the world's commodities. This will necessitate a population many times that which now exists and undoubtedly promote the development of the entire country. With governmental encouragement, railway lines will be constructed in the Chagres Valley and along the Pacific Coast line, ultimately forming a link in the future Pan-American Railway. A further stimulus in this direction will be caused by the large number of active Americans attracted by the construction of the Panama Canal, not only as direct employees of the United States Government engaged on the work, but in connection with the collateral and auxiliary trade relations necessitated thereby. Many of these people will find their future destiny as residents of the Panama Republic, and their predominating influence will no doubt result in the growth of a warm and lasting friendship between the inhabitants. of the Republic of Panama and the United States. It will also tend to promote future profitable trade relations with all South American countries. The present treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama provides for a protectorate which practically gives the United States not only the power of intervening to repel invasion and repress local disorders, but also guarantees that the United States will assume the responsibility for the internal and foreign peace of the country. What the final outcome will be, and whether or not a closer relationship will eventually exist between the United States and the Republic of Panama depends largely upon the inclination and desire of the people of that country, which may result in annexation at some future time. It does not require a prophetic mind or great foresight to predict the day when the Republic of Panama will support a population of several million happy and contented people, profitably engaged in the development of its abundant natural resources. COLONIALISM CAN WE GIVE UP OUR COLONIES? BY HARRY PRATT JUDSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO This article by President Judson should be read in connection with the two preceding articles in the series by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Willis. The importance of the colonial question is every day more evident, and unless we mistake, is likely to come even more to the front during the presidential campaign. N considering the question whether the United States can give up colonies one must of course assume that the free assent of this country is implied. France, Spain and Great Britain have had colonies wrested from them by force of arms. The same fate might come to the United States, although it seems probable that a war in which the republic should finally be worsted would be a struggle of no mean magnitude and one in which the loss would not be confined to one belligerent only. At present, however, we are not concerned with such contingencies, but rather with a consideration of the circumstances which might lead to a voluntary withdrawal of our government from the control of certain colonies. That we have colonial dependencies at present is beyond question. That we ought to have them, that the genius of our political system is in accord with colonial control, is strenuously denied by some American American publicists. Their argument from the Declaration of Independence and from the Constitution rests on quite simple fallacies. That all men are born equal, that they are endowed by nature with certain inalienable rights, and that all just governments rest on the consent of the governed, are generalities which sound very well in a political manifesto or in popular oratory. But when it is attempted to apply them in practical law, every one of these dicta has to be explained and qualified and limited. No one in the Congress of 1776 understood them to be true in an unlimited sense. No public law has ever embodied them in an unlimited sense. No unlimited application of them has ever been made or can be made anywhere. The Whigs of the American Revolution did not for a moment hold that negro slaves were born equal before the law with white men. Not one of the thirteen colonies regarded suffrage as an inalienable right of all men; the voting qualifications in many of the states were very rigid. There never has been a moment since the Constitution was adopted when the United States has not governed communities without their consent and without giving them a share in governing the republic. The system of territories was coeval with the Constitution itself, and land inhabited by aliens was acquired by purchase when government under the Constitution had barely entered on its second decade. We promised to make states from the Northwest territory, to be sure, and we have done it. We have agreed in certain treaties by which we have acquired territory to admit the inhabitants to all the rights and privileges of American citizens, but only when we regard it as practicable in accordance with our best interests. New Mexico and Arizona have been territorial dependencies for a half century. The question on which their admission as a state turns is their fitness to share in the general government, and if they do not convince the Congress of such fitness, territories they will remain until the end of time. So far as the legal right of the United States to acquire and to govern populated lands is concerned there is no longer room for doubt. The Supreme Court has spoken too often on this subject for controversy in the opposite sense to be maintained successfully. But setting aside the legal question there remains that of equity. Is it just that one people shall govern another? Is it in accordance with American ideals that any community should not decide its own destinies in its own way? The abstract doctrine that every aggregation of people has a right to unmolested liberty of self-government can not safely be reduced to practice. Experience has led nations to a very different ground. The development of political civilization has made clear the general sense of a mutual international obligation to maintain public order as the prime condition of peace and progress. Order must first of all be maintained within every community. Then each community must keep the peace with others. This implies that within each land life and property are measurably safe, that the peace of nations is kept, that no people are a source of trouble and danger to their neighbors, that aliens, provided that they do no harm, may freely travel and reside in any state. These are the fundamental principles of the order and prosperity of the world. It is only from the observance of such rules of conduct that modern life has emerged from the confusion and distress of the Middle Ages. No doubt perfection has not yet been attained. Life and property are not absolutely secure in all parts of the United States, and international wars are by no means abrogated. Still in the main civilized nations observe these principles in their broad lines. There may be feud murders in Kentucky and lawless mobs in New Orleans. But even so, a law-abiding man would not hesitate to feel comparatively safer in the United States than in Morocco. Backward civilizations neglect such standards. Lawlessness is the rule rather than the exception. The life and property of aliens are not secure, and this is not an occasional circumstance but a normal condition. Ignorance or inattention to the principles of preventive medicine results in pestilence which may easily be disseminated abroad. International frontiers are not sacred, and dwellers on the other side of the line are exposed to danger from irresponsible and uncontrolled raiders. Such a community becomes a source of annoyance which in the end can not be endured, an international nuisance which may justifiably be abated by armed force. It is such causes which have led to the establishment of protectorates and to colonial annexations. The corsairs of Algiers and of Tunis were for generations a |