網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

the citizens. In Pittsburg the defeat last fall of the reformers and honest Democrats has led to the revival of the old Municipal League, which will make a strong effort to redeem the city from the hands of both groups of spoilsmen. In Harrisburg, where so great an advance was scored a year ago, the Municipal League proposes to make an active fight for the election of decent men, as it finds that many of the regular party men who sailed into office in the reform tide have lost their keen interest in the Municipal League end of it and are more concerned in playing politics. In the meantime, against rather heavy odds, Mayor Vance McCormick is making commendable progress, rooting out old abuses and establishing the city's affairs on what may be called a business basis.

Last week Spain sufPraxedes Mateo Sagasta fered the loss of one who, since the death of Cánovas del Castillo, has, not without justice, been called the one great Spanish statesman. Praxedes Mateo Sagasta was a Castilian; he was born seventy-five years ago, and was educated as an engineer, but he early turned to politics as a life-work. In 1854 he was elected to the Cortes, or Parliament, but, on account of his part in the insurrection two years later, was obliged to take refuge in France. When he was allowed to go back to Spain, he returned temporarily to his old profession and became Professor in the Madrid School of Engineering, at the same time editing the radical-progressive "Iberia." In this latter capacity he continued his bold proclamation of Liberal principles, thereby bringing himself into disfavor with the Ministers of Isabella II. During the insurrection of 1866 he was again obliged to flee to France, but, on the overthrow of the despotic Queen (1868), returned to Spain, and, the constitutional guarantees being suspended, when General Prim formed a provisional government, Sagasta, as Prim's "familiar spirit," was appointed Minister of Public Works, subsequently becoming Minister of the Interior, and finally Minister of Foreign Affairs, acting in the last-named capacity throughout the critical year of 1870. Colonel John Hay, now Secretary of State at Washington,

was then an attaché of our Legation at Madrid, and thus describes Sagasta :

He has a dark, wrinkled face, small, bright eyes, the smile and scowl of Mephistopheles. He is a most vigorous and energetic speaker, but so aggressive and pungent in his style that he rarely fails to raise a tempest in the languid House when he speaks at any length. He has a hearty contempt for the people and a firm reliance in himself-two important. elements of success for a Latin statesman. On the accession of Amadeus of Aosta, in 1871, Sagasta entered the new Cabinet, an indication that by this time his radicalism had become cooled. He certainly became the antagonist of Ruiz Zorilla, that radical of radicals; the latter's election to the presidency of the Cortes was a bitter pill to Sagasta, forcing his resignation from the recently assumed Premiership. Amadeus refused to accept the resignation, however, and the Cortes was dissolved. In the subsequent elections the Ministry obtained a large majority, it is true, but Zorilla succeeded so well in showing that the elections were secured by corrupt practices that, after a few months, the Premier was again driven from power. When, in 1873, Spain found herself again a republic, Sagasta was once more Minister of Foreign A airs and Prime Minister, and remained so until the accession of Alfonso XII., a year later. The Premier who had served Marshal Serrano would not give his adhesion to the new régime until the King, who was destined to reign eleven years, had been six months on the throne. 1881 Sagasta and Martinos Campos organized the present Liberal party, which overthrew the Conservatives and came into power. From this time forward Spain knew many vacillations between Conservative and Liberal Cabinets, which were invariably headed now by Cánovas, now by Sagasta.

Sagasta and America

In

The Spanish Cabinet change of 1897 seemed the most important of all; it proclaimed Spain's last effort to retain (and now by a broad policy which might have been successful earlier) her hold upon her colonies in general, and upon Cuba in particular. Sagasta assumed the Premiership on the distinct policy of the pacification of Cuba through autonomy-a policy opposed, not

only by all the Spanish Conservatives, but even by many Spanish Liberals. The Premier's first act was to recall General Weyler, the infamous "butcher" CaptainGeneral of Cuba, and to appoint as his successor the humaner and high-minded General Blanco; but in everything Sagasta left no opportunity unexhausted to avert the coming war. Even he was powerless

in the matter; and when the Manila disaster capped the climax, he was forced to resign. The sympathies of the courageous Queen Regent, however, were firmly enlisted upon his side; and, largely through her aid, Sagasta was successful in forming a new Cabinet. He now abandoned his former temporizing tactics and declared that the war should be fought to the bitter end, though he knew better than any one that from the start Spain's cause was hopeless. When the war was over, perhaps the most difficult problems ever faced by any statesman had to be met by the Spanish Premier. It is true that he was helped by the surprisingly phlegmatic national spirit in the face of the loss of tens of thousands of men and of vast colonial possessions. But he met each new perplexity with such calmness, courage, and straightforwardness that his Cabinet actually lasted for months after the close of the war. In 1901 a threatened Carlist insurrection led to the downfall of the Conservatives, and Sagasta was again called to power as the one man under whose influence the army would remain loyal to the Alfonsist monarchy. In this task Sagasta's success was brilliant; and he himself had the satisfaction of completing his long and devoted service. to the Queen Regent by insuring the peaceful accession to the throne of her young son, the present King. Sagasta remained as Premier during most of the first year of the new reign, everywhere consolidating the power of the actual monarchy. It is believed that the admirable Queen Regent herself could not have preserved the succession to her son during his minority if it had not been for the unswerving loyalty of the great Liberal statesman. Personally Sagasta was rather un-Spanish; he was unarrogant, uneloquent, ungraceful. If his apparently Mephistophelian subtlety was everywhere acknowledged, so also was his personal honesty, no matter how he may have

winked at official corruption. He li simply and died poor-a striking c ment upon the integrity which had tinguished a long record of opportun i for private gain irresistibly tempting men of weaker fiber.

The Irish Land Question

[ocr errors]

The vexed Irish 1 question has app ently advanced a long step towards s tion through the report of the Land Con ence which was recently arranged by Earl of Dunraven and other landlords the one hand, and, on the other, by Mes Russell (Independent), and Redmo O'Brien, and Harrington (Nationalists). behalf of the tenants. The Conference ceived encouragement from Mr. Wyndha Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, it is derstood, from King Edward himself. would seem as if the Committee rep sented irreconcilable views; but, acco ing to its just published report, it made a unanimous declaration concerni future governmental aid in Ireland. unanimity of this recommendation, ratl than the terms of the recommendati itself, gives hope, such as has not be cherished before, for future peace a good will in what has often seemed to an unnecessarily unhappy isle. Inde it is safe to say that the unanimous agr ment on the land question by represen tives of landlords and tenants is the m notable event that has occurred in I land for generations. The report ev meets the approval of extreme Tory lan lords in Ireland-the Duke of Aberco the Marquis of Londonderry, Lords Clo brock and Barrymore, for instance, who the outset apparently discountenanc the Committee, undoubtedly because th thought that no permanent settleme could be reached, as they considered the estates worth more than the tenants cou afford to pay. The rental to be dea with is no less than $25,000,000. Accor ing to the report, the proposed settleme would be on lines of voluntary purchas rather than compulsory sale, and woul substitute a reduced installment of pu chase-money for rent. In order to accom plish the aims of the Committee, th amount which the Imperial Governmer would have to pay would be abou $3,000,000 a year. The question, there

fore, is: Will the British Treasury officials continue their rather haggling policy as regards Irish matters, or will they institute a broader-gauge system? To insure loyalty the Irish demand generous treatment, if for no other reason than that they are a generous, if hitherto improvident, people. Statistics, however, show that they have been less improvident during the years which have elapsed since the passing of the Gladstone Land Act of 1881. It is believed that public sentiment in the United Kingdom, once convinced that permanency of settlement might be reached by legislation following the encouraging agreement just noted, might force the Treasury's unwilling hand. The unanimous recommendation, there fore, will at least enable the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce an Irish land bill into Parliament at its next session. It should be the chief Government measure of that session.

The Dardanelles

Last week the British Gov

ernment protested to the Turkish Government against the permission recently granted to four unarmed Russian torpedo-boat destroyers to pass through the Dardanelles to the Black Sea under the Russian commercial flag. The British note declares that such a passage of the Dardanelles was a violation of existing international treaties, and adds that if Russia is allowed to send war-ships into the Mediterranean Great Britain will reserve the right to demand that British battle-ships may be sent into the Black Sea. The treaties of 1856 and 1871 provide for the closing of the Dardanelles to war vessels of all countries. The present is not the first violation. Russia has more than once smuggled war-craft through the straits under the guise of harmless merchantmen or transports carrying home time-expired troops. The Russian Government can hardly seriously maintain that a vessel of war entirely changes its character by merely dropping its armament and raising a commercial flag. As, under treaty, England would be allowed to send warships to the Black Sea if Russia is permitted to despatch her vessels into the Mediterranean, the protest from the British Government caused considerable irrita

tion in Russian circles, and also some concern on the part of the Turkish authorities, who feared that other Powers might follow the example of Great Britain. The other Power most feared by Turkey would be Germany, and hence there was considerable relief at Constantinople at a non-official announcement later in the week at Berlin that Germany does not propose to associate herself with Great Britain's protest, on the ground that the Berlin Government "considered the Dardanelles equally with the whole of the Mediterranean as outside its sphere of politics." This statement may be only a temporary expedient on the part of William II. He is aware as well as any one that he is not only German Emperor but King of Prussia, which, as a member of the North German Federation, was a signatory of the Treaty of Paris in 1856. While the recent passage of the Dardanelles may not amount to any more than previous evasions of the law, under present conditions it has been an event of sufficient import to compel a decline in English consols, financiers fearing the phantom of possible international complications. The incident, they think, may not be wholly unconnected with Balkan complications, especially with the expected insurrection in Macedonia next spring.

The New German Tariff

By a summary use of closure, the German Government has forced its tariff bill through Parliament, or rather it has forced a tariff measure upon the German people, more drastic and unworkable than was the measure originally proposed. That bill was due to the insistence of the Junkers or Agrarians in Parliament, and the Government's support was popularly supposed to be paid for by a return support from all agriculturists concerning certain governmental undertakings. If the original bill was unwelcome to the entire manufacturing element in Germany, the measure just passed is still more unwelcome. The coalition which has rallied to its support and defeated the Liberals by a vote of two to one has provoked sharp criticisms. Perhaps the most noticeable has come from the venerable Theodor Mommsen, who for many years has commanded world-wide respect, not only on

account of his History-now a classic-of Rome, but also because he has been regarded as an authority on the history of constitutional development. Professor Mommsen differs from some German scholars in being as fearless in expressing his opinions as he is erudite in forming them. Germans have not forgotten the day when Bismarck caused him and the lamented Georg von Bunsen to be excluded from the Reichstag on account of their courageous strictures upon the Iron Chancellor's autocratic policy. Professor Mommsen calls attention to the peril of continuing any alliance between the Agrarians and the Roman Catholic party of the Center, as under this alliance Germany stands in danger of a renewal of the old feudal régime. The country may again be dominated by the great landowners and nobles acting in harmony with the ecclesiastics. In this event the Constitution itself would be endangered; "its overthrow is rapidly progressing," says Professor Mommsen. In these very modern and progressive times it seems almost impossible that a Junker domination-in other words, an aristocratic absolutism-could long obtain in Germany. Already the new tariff measure has exercised a depressing effect on German commerce and industry. Far from being discouraged by the passage of the bill, the Socialists in Parliament, who were its chief opponents, feel that the measure can endure only for a short time. It would seem improbable that any reactionary agrarian coalition could stand for many years in the path of the progress of manufacturing Germany, importing every year $300,000,000 worth of manufactured products, nearly $500,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, and about $700,000,000 worth of raw material for factory use. A tariff war is not a pleasant thing to contemplate anywhere, but of all protection countries Germany can thus least afford to provoke it.

Last week the Rt. Rev. The New Archbishop Randall Thomas Daof Canterbury vidson, D.D., Bishop of Winchester, was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury to succeed the late Most Rev. Frederick Temple, D.D., who died in December. The new Archbishop is a comparatively young man, but has served

a capital apprenticeship for the exalted office to which he has been called; he was born in 1848, and is a son of Henry Davidson, of Edinburgh. He was graduated at Trinity College, Oxford, and for some years served as curate at Dartford, Kent. For the five years following he was chaplain and private secretary to Archbishop Tait, of Canterbury, whose daughter he married. He made the principal arrangements for the great Lambeth Conference of one hundred bishops in 1878, and is consequently well known to the prelates of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. He was also chaplain and private secretary to Archbishop Benson. This was followed by his appointment as Fxamining Chaplain to Bishop Lightfoot, of Durham. During these years he was also one of the six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral; and in 1883 became Dean of Windsor and Domestic Chaplain to the Queen. He was Secretary of the Lambeth Conference of 1888, and afterwards published a history of the Lambeth Conferences. In 1891 he was appointed Bishop of Rochester and Clerk of the Closet in Ordinary to the Queen (in this capacity he ministered to the venerable monarch in her last moments), and in 1895, on Dr. Thorold's death, Bishop of Winchester. During and since his years at Windsor Dr. Davidson has been intimately connected with the Court; he was a close friend of the late Queen, and is one of the recognized advisers of the present King. On the death of Dr. Benson the Archbishopric was offered to Dr. Davidson, but his health at that time was precarious, and he was obliged to decline it. Personally courtly and urbane, the new Archbishop is popular, not only with the Court, but with the people. Unlike Dr. Temple's. his experience has been gained wholly within the Church; like Dr. Temple, he is an ardent temperance reformer as well as a great administrator. His quality of mind is well shown in the admirable biog raphy of Archbishop Tait, his father-inlaw, published in 1891. Although Dr. Davidson has been classed as "BroadChurch Evangelical," English Churchmen of whatever party feel sincere satisfaction with his appointment-by far the most important ecclesiastical preferment which Mr. Balfour, the new Premier, has been called upon to recommend.

A Beecher Memorial

It is proposed by Plymouth Church of Brooklyn to erect a building which shall stand as a memorial to Henry Ward Beecher. The idea of this memorial originated with Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis, the present pastor of the church, who is working with energy and enthusiasm for its develop. ment. Dr. Hillis proposes a Memorial Building that shall be a mausoleum, where objects associated with Mr. Beecher, such as his manuscripts and works of art illustrating his life, shall be kept and displayed. A fund has already been started to provide for this memorial, and a committee of the church has been selected to carry on the work of raising funds and creating public interest. Contributions should be sent to Theodore Miller, President of the Brooklyn Trust Company, Brooklyn, N. Y., who is treasurer of the fund. This suggestion to erect a building which shall stand at once as a mausoleum to contain the body of Henry Ward Beecher, and as a shrine in which all the objects associated with his life shall be preserved, springs out of a natural desire to commemorate one of the most important men in the history of the country; a man whose influence in the support of the idea of nationality and freedom was a large factor in the crisis of the Civil War, and whose eloquent exposition of faith in a God of love was far-reaching in breaking the bondage of the fear of a God of wrath. With the animating purpose of this memorial of Mr. Beecher The Outlook is in profound sympathy, but the matter is too important to let the question of details go by without consideration and perhaps discussion. Memorials ought in all cases to harmonize with the genius and spirit of the man whom they commemorate, and the question as to what is the best form which a memorial to Mr. Beecher could take is one not merely of interest to his church and his personal friends, but to the public at large. It is worth while asking at this stage whether a themorial of Mr. Beecher's great services to the country should not take what might be called a vital form, should not be given the shape of perpetual beneficence to the unfortunate, the struggling, those who have to fight against adverse conditions. Mr. Beecher was pre-eminently an apostle of freedom in religion,

in public life, in the individual character. We hope the memorial fund will be raised generously and quickly. But when it is raised, we believe it should be so expended as to express, in the most permanent and concrete form, the spirit which actuated Mr. Beecher in his service to his church, to his country, and to his race.

The Methodist

With the close of Twentieth-Century Fund the year 1902 the Twentieth-Century Thank-Offering Movement of the Methodist Episcopal Church came to a termination. In various parts of the country meetings were held on the evening of December 31 commemorative of the movement, and partaking largely of the aspect of a jubilee over the successful accomplishment of the work as outlined by the Board of Bishops of that Church in their first announcement of the Twentieth-Century Movement four years ago. Dr. Edmund M. Mills, the Corresponding Secretary of the Commission having the movement in charge, has made a report covering several of the principal causes for which the funds were contributed. The gifts to universities and colleges amount to $6,932,783; to theological seminaries, $85,730; to institutions for secondary education, $1,132,100; making a total for education of $8,150,613. Dr. Mills reports as the amount subscribed toward debts on church property, $9,003,596; toward philanthropies and charities, $2,519,761; toward a permanent fund for the superannuated ministers of the Church, $604,000; toward churches in destitute communities, $379,000. This makes a grand total of $20,656,970. It should be stated that this vast sum does not represent the whole amount raised under the terms of the movement. Several large gifts in addition to those recorded by Dr. Mills have been made, but are not in his tabulation because not officially reported; but it is quite within bounds to say that the final total will exceed the required amount by a million and a half dollars. Among the educational institutions which received large contributions are Syracuse University, $1,203,800; Ohio Wesleyan University, $1,092,806; American University, $525,000; Cornell College, $405,000; Allegheny College, $310,000; Wes

« 上一頁繼續 »