women, and children have been sent by the fund to America, and in some instances to as distant parts as San Francisco and Galveston, while many men have been kept in food and lodging until relief could be obtained from relatives or work could be procured. Fortunately, the professional begging class has been exposed, and a number of plausible people who have lived for years in London on the kindness and credulity of their countrymen have been obliged to seek other fields for their labors.

In still another field the American Society has rendered timely and effective work. The fund in England for the relief of the sufferers by the explosion in the harbor of Havana of the U. S. S. Maine was raised by the Society, and although the American Victoria Jubilee Memorial and the work of fitting out the hospital ship Maine as an offering by American people to alleviate the suffering of English soldiers in South Africa and afterward in China was initiated by others, the organization of the Society gave valuable assistance to these movements. At the present time committees are being organized in England and the United States by the Society to raise funds as a contribution from Americans to the Victoria Memorial. The King has communicated to the Society how much touched he has been by the spirit in which the offer is made, and has indicated that the scheme of "the memorial will, in all probability, assume a form which will permit of a clear designation for all time of the offering made in memory of the Queen by the citizens of the United States."

The Society is also considering at the present time the formation of a standing committee in the nature of a chamber of commerce, which shall have offices in the city, if necessity requires, and which shall serve to keep Americans in London and Americans in the United States in touch with each other and thoroughly informed upon all movements of politics and commerce and trade relations which may affect American interests.

PROFESSOR REINSCH'S "WORLD POLITICS"

IN.

BY GEORGE BRINTON CHANDLER

N "World Politics," by Professor Reinsch, of the University of Wisconsin, we have the best and at the same time the most misleading book that has appeared on the question of imperialism. It is the best because the author has collected and sifted the vast fund of data bearing upon his theme with greater skill and discrimination than any previous writer. He has clothed it in uniformly clear and vigorous English, and arranged it with the perfect command of a thorough understanding. It is misleading because, while claiming to be " entirely free from a priori conception and prejudices," it has running through it a pronounced vein of hostility to the expansionist movement as a whole. An open advocate is never misleading; the reader is forewarned, and instinctively adopts a judicial attitude. But whenever a writer assumes a non-partisan position, and then consciously or unconsciously allows bias to pervade his work, the result is damaging to the cause of truth. It is unfortunate, just at this time, that the most available book which has appeared should not be less dangerous to the open-minded reader.

To condense its main features into a single paragraph : (a) The tendency of the century just closing has been toward nationalism toward enlightened national selfishness, intenser national patriotism, national individuality and unification. Germany may be considered the typical example of this. The old humanitarian dream of a world federation and a common civilization, in which all the elements were to be harmonized and to work together for a common end, has given way to that of family, of self-centered political

organisms, chief among which are Great Britain, Russia, the United States, Germany, and France. (b) In the latter half of the century this nationalism has been shading off into imperialism. Great Britain has taken the lead, and Germany and France have followed her example. Russia is sui generis. This modern imperialism should be carefully distinguished from the ancient and mediæval ideas of world empire. It is rather the policing and exploitation of the disorderly and undeveloped areas of the earth's surface. Its origin was not in the conscious ambition of monarchs or ministries, but rather in colonization, in the investment of capital, in the initiative of explorers, missionaries, and soldiers, and in what Prof. Reinsch terms "unconscious social development." At first the movement was natural and spontaneous, but as it became necessary for governments to interfere to protect the persons and investments of their citizens from disorder and the maladministration of justice, it gradually became more conscious and concerted. While this exploitation and subsequent supervision has in some instances wrought temporary hardship, its net result, through the introduction of railroads, improved methods of manufacture and farming, and stable form of government, has been bene ficial to the subject races. The great unoccupied areas are China and South America, the former of which presents the commanding problem of the epoch. It is probable that this outward movement of the more powerful races will not cease until all the unoccupied areas shall have been either reduced to a condition of law and order, or, as in the case of Japan, voluntarily reformed from within. (c) In conclusion, it should be the policy of the United States to avoid participating in this movement. While it seems to be expedient for us to accept the consequences of our Spanish war in good faith and to safeguard our interests in the Orient by supporting the so-called "open door," the general tendency of the policy of expansion is unwholesome. It will break up party government; it will unduly strengthen the

power of the executive; it will divert attention from internal affairs, such as civil service reform and the adjustment of the interests of labor and capital; it marks the downfall of the liberal movement. The United States has by no means developed its own resources to their limit, and its energies can be better employed at home than in what is termed a "head-long policy of territorial aggrandizement.” Our policy should be a negative one. It should be the part of the United States to "counteract everywhere, at home. and abroad, the ambitions of universal imperialism."

Such is Professor Reinsch's advice to the American people. Let us take the liberty of substituting a set of conclusions of our own, based upon his statement of conditions in the world to-day: Each stage of political progress has some dominant idea. That of the nineteenth century has been nationalism; that of the twentieth century promises to be imperialism. Like all large movements, it will bear within itself the possibilities of a great good and a great evil. We see unmistakable marks of both these tendencies at the present time. Some of the leading nations in the movement are inclined to demand exclusive privileges in the territories under their charge and to adopt a reactionary policy in their administration, while other nations stand for equality of opportunity, gradual introduction of self-government, and a world-wide application of the fruits of the preceding age of nationalism and liberal ideas. Each of these two forces is struggling for the mastery. Results momentous to humanity hang on this contest.

The policy of the United States in this crisis should be a positive one. To stand aloof would be national dishonor. Just as in its infancy the Republic gave the first impetus to the reform movement of the century, so in the might of its young manhood should it bear its part in the shaping of the new tendencies of the century that is to follow. It should stand ready to identify itself, heart and soul, with any group of interests that share its purposes and ideals. To carry to

the uttermost parts of the world the products of this wonderful age of industry and liberal ideas-law and order, stable government, railroads, accumulated wealth, manufactories, education, practical Christianity—and to make them do their work of profit both to giver and receiver, should be the undeviating purpose of the American people. This may at times make large drafts upon our resources, material and moral. It may check temporarily some of the desired reforms at home. But the movement is upon us and cannot be blinked. We could not avoid it if we would, and we would not if we could. If this nation were to remain neutral and if in the struggle between absolutism and universal liberalism, between national monopoly and the "open door," the forces of despotism and reaction should finally triumph, posterity never would forgive us for our selfish inaction in the moment of the world's need.

If in the pursuit of this comprehensive ideal, territories and peoples come under our charge, let us not shirk their firm, just, and sensible administration. If, on the other hand, we can lead any people to reform from within and stand alone, let us grant them our generous and patient aid. If it shall become necessary to drop old practices and establish new precedents, let us no more shrink from them than did our forefathers at the founding of our government. Let us not become intoxicated with the generalities of a former epoch. Let us not stagnate in the obsolete devices of an earlier stage of political reform. In holding fast to old landmarks let us avoid the errors of past experience. At all times let us look to the sources at home and keep them clear and strong; but let us not shrink from obvious duty out of fear that we may not be able to keep them so, for that would be the sure way to invite pollution.

This, instead of the one drawn by the author, we believe to be the lesson the American people will read from the valuable data contained in Professor Reinsch's book. His negative policy will not appeal to their active temper and