nated, and only by implication could it be argued that we made any tender of regret for the secession of the Panamans.

Then there was another underlying reason of a decidedly practical character for approving this treaty-one which was perhaps not so much in evidence when the treaty was put before the Senate by President Wilson in 1914, but which now has become one of the first importanceand that is the assistance it will give the United States in the world-wide hunt for oil. There are vast oil fields in Colombia, which should be developed by us. But with this treaty rejected concessions of the kind desired would .never be given to American capital, and it would be humiliating indeed to see them given to Great Britain.

Against these very practical reasons urged by the proponents of the treaty the opposition naturally weakened. Whereas a few years ago many of the strongest friends of the late President Roosevelt-men like Lodge, Fall, and McCumber-were against ratification, to-day they appeared as its strongest champions, in and out of the Senate.

The New York "Evening Post" rejoices as follows: "Gratification over the vote in the Senate upon the treaty with Colombia is enhanced by two circumstances: the promptness with which the Senate acted upon President Harding's recommendation and the size of the majority. . . . It is the first important act of the new Administration, if by Administration we mean to include the Capitol as well as the White House. It was the subject of the first special Message by President Harding, who thus put his prestige to the test upon the question of whether we should or should not take the step which alone could restore us to the confidence of Central and South America."

An independent Democratic paper, the New York "Times," thus pays its respects to the victors:

Voting to ratify the Colombian treaty yesterday meant a severe intellectual and moral strain for many Republican Senators. They had to approve what they had vehemently and virtuously condemned four years ago. And they had to find arguments for their change of front. This was in some ways harder than the change itself....

It certainly would seem that Mr. Lodge had in 1917 occupied ground from which he could not withdraw his troops without exposing them to destruction. He had delivered himself against the Colombian treaty with great moral earnestness. "Any friendship," he said, "which is bought is worthless." This is especially the case when it is "under threats which, when successful, breed contempt in the mind of the seller and a sense of bitter dislike and humiliation in that of the buyer." And the Massachusetts Senator made short work of the plea that the payment of $25,000,000 to Colombia would be anything but a "plea of guilty." "No other construction can or will be placed by the world on our action."

"We cannot afford to answer a black-
mail demand." But a masterly leader
to the rear like Mr. Lodge had little
difficulty in getting away from all
this. He invited the Senate and the
country to look at "the larger aspects
of the question." All of these could
not be seen four years ago. There
were considerations of "international
amity" to be dwelt upon to-day; there
was the matter of trade, to which we
could not be blind, and had Senators
duly weighed the vital necessity of
oil and were they aware that Colom-
bia contained vast and unexploited
deposits to which Americans held
claims and concessions only waiting
on the ratification of the treaty?
Moreover, Colombia was "the only
South American state which has both
an Atlantic and a Pacific coast, and
on those coasts are good harbors ca-
pable of large development."

Naturally, other Democratic papers also throughout the country cannot resist paying their sarcastic respects to the Republican turn-coat Senators, while opposing their action. Nor can Republican papers whose editors dare think for themselves refrain. For instance, the New York "Tribune" referred to those "who would screen the transaction, saying that it is an act of largess. to quiet the Colombians though they have no just claim." Another New York paper speaks as follows:

It is a source of immeasurable astonishment to the New York "Herald" that there should be, by Republican initiative both in the White House and in the Senate, a revival of this proposal to duplicate to Colombia the legitimate indemnity which Colombia asked for nearly twenty years ago and then rejected, and which consequently and properly went to Panama, its rightful recipient; and not only to duplicate that huge grant already once paid but to increase it one hundred and fifty per cent. . . . This newspaper cannot comprehend the position of Senator Lodge, for example, who now advocates the payment to Colombia invited by President Harding: the same payment which, when proposed by President Wilson, was denounced as blackmail. . . . If the measure was blackmail then, it is blackmail now. ... Such, unquestionably, is not the statesmanship of justice. It is the statesmanship of expediency. At the expense of Roosevelt's fame for honest dealing, the New York "Herald" is by no means prepared to believe that the implied confession and attempted purchase of friendship will have the effect upon Latin-American sentiment which the promoters of the experiment profess to expect.

Doubtless with reference to the report that not half a dozen Republican Senators really favored the treaty, the "Herald" adds: "In putting through the Colombian treaty the Republican Senate committed itself to a grand piece of mystery legislation. In this mystery business it looks as if we already had, in the new Administration, a touch of Wilsonian autocracy. But this isn't really the case. Instead it is only the steam-rolled execution of a close corporation machine."

The word "oil" apparently explains the mystery, as indeed the Buffalo "Commercial" indicated. The Chicago "Trib une" (Rep.) is more specific:

Secretary Fall says that the oil in Colombia is reason for bribing that Latin Government to be good-natured and obliging. The United States, he says, is getting the worst of it because it does not back its oil searchers and producers as the British back their own and that, in consequence, we shall be run out of many wonderful oil fields.

We want oil. We want to develop every possible opportunity and every possible field. We particularly do not want to overlook or neglect fields and opportunities in our own sphere. The oil of the future may contain the supremacy of the future.

What we do not see is the relevancy of the $25,000,000 payment to Colombia to the oil resources of Colombia. We can see its relevancy to the Panama Canal and we can see how it implies our apology for digging the Canal.

The "Tribune" refuses to follow any Administration in making such an apology by implication. We do not believe in giving any money to any Colombian government at any time as payment for the building of the Canal. There would be more sense, as Senator Johnson remarks, in giving it to our own unemployed, to our veterans, to disabled soldiers, to Americans who have done something for the American Government.

If the $25,000,000 will get something for the United States, let a treaty be formulated which will set forth the considerations in the bond.

"If the money is actually intended as an inducement to Colombia to grant oil concessions to Americans and not to confiscate their property," declares the Portland "Oregonian" (Rep.), "that should be stated in black and white, but it should be done by a separate treaty, in order that oil and the Canal may be kept apart."

As to the Panama Canal, if we wronged Colombia, we ought, in the "Oregonian's" opinion, "to restore what we took, not pay hush money." Furthermore, "If we did right, we ought to pay nothing, for such payment would set a precedent for an endless series of like demands. Omission of the apology does not relieve the payment of the taint of blackmail. The United States grants valuable concessions on the Canal and agrees to pay $25,000,000 to boot without specifying for what it is paid. The plain inference is that it has something to do with the Canal and Panama, for nothing else is mentioned in the amended treaty."

"The 'Bee' has opposed this treaty from the start," the principal paper in Omaha records. "If any wrong was done to Colombia," it says, "it should have been adjusted long ago; if we owe that country anything, we ought to pay it. . . . Whatever the outcome, the relations of our Government with all others should rest on a foundation of fair and honorable dealings, not on the uncertainty of bargains such as seems to be suggested by Secretary Fall. Pinckney's

patriotic dictum, 'Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute,' ought to be remembered now."

The conclusion of the whole matter, as viewed by many people, is thus stated by the Kansas City "Star" (Rep.):

In its first important move the Harding Administration has made an exceedingly bad impression on the country. The Colombian treaty is simply a sale of National honor for

T

HERE is nothing so dead as a dead slogan.

Take, for instance, the slogan which did such yeoman service in Canada in 1911-"No truck or trade with the Yankees." He would be a rash individual indeed who would seek to rehabilitate that battle-cry in Canada to-day-not that there are not some politicians, and others, who would make the attempt quickly enough if they thought there was a chance that the public could be hoodwinked by it again; in fact, these persons hailed with delight the recent agitation in the United States which resulted in the Fordney Bill, but there was not much response throughout the country.

On the other hand, the two political parties which are likely to return the largest groups to the next Parliamentthe Liberals and the National Progressives (Agrarian)-each have as a plank in their political platform, "Reciprocity with the United States."

It was a Government preponderantly Conservative, and headed by Sir Robert Borden-who attained power in 1911 by means of the cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees"-which last year provided for the establishment at Washington of a Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary. The appointment has not actually been made up to the time of writing, but a Minister of the Government in March of this year, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, stated that the appointment would be made when a suitable man had been found for the post.

In the year 1920 Canada spent in the United States approximately $925,000,000. In the same year the United States spent $600,000,000 in Canada. Canada is Uncle Sam's second-best customer. The United States is Canada's best customer.

In connection with Canada's trade with the United States, the view expressed by the Hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of the National Progressive party, in the House of Commons on February 24 of this year is of interest as showing the trend of opinion in the Dominion. Mr. Crerar said, 'in part:

There is, however, one other criticism that I have to make, in the most friendly way, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce [Sir George Foster], and that is that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not at the present time discharging its

duty in respect to the development of trade with our great neighbor to the south. What are the conditions? The United States Government has to-day in Canada over one hundred consuls, the great majority of these being in reality trade agents. You find them scattered over this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. What are they doing? They are, in their way, quite properly, placing with prospective Canadian customers the advantages of trading with and buying from firms in the United States. We have agents abroad; but where do we find them? We have a trade agent in the Argentine Republic; we have one in Australia; we have one in Brazil; we have trade representatives in China; we have them in New Zealand, in Italy, in France, in Holland, and in South Africa; but we have not one in the United States. I would suggest, I hope in a spirit of constructiveness, the need, the advisability, of the Department over which my right honorable friend presides getting busy in this direction. We have our greatest customers to the south. More than one-half of the trade of Canada is done with the United States, and in that direction lies the best opportunity we have in the near years approaching for the development and extension of our trade.

Mr. Crerar is the President of the great United Grain Growers, Limited, the largest co-operative farmers' organization in the world. He was Minister of Agriculture in the Union Government during the war, but resigned in 1919 because he did not agree with the fiscal policy of the Government. He is the asknowledged leader of the organized farmers of Canada, comprising practically every province in the Dominion. It is conceded in political circles on all sides that the party which he leads will hold the balance of power after the next election. In view of all these facts, his opinion carries with it much weight.

While Canada does not maintain a single trade representative in the United States, a publicity bureau has been maintained in New York under the recent direction of Colonel J. A. Cooper. Speaking at a Canadian Club banquet in New York on March 7, Colonel Cooper stated that he had recommended to the Canadian Government the appointment in the United States of an equal number of trade representatives to that maintained by the latter coun

try in Canada. His experience of fifteen months in the United States had shown him the advisability of such a course.

At first glance, it would appear strange that Canada should apparently neglect such a rich field in favor of Rumania and Greece, where the money has had to be advanced by the Canadian Government before orders were forthcomingor at least before the goods could be paid for. The explanation is simple: Sir George Foster, who heads the Department of Trade and Commerce, is one of the few men in Canada who have remained true to the old slogan of 1911.

Circumstances, however, have played havoc with the plans of 1911. A great cataclysm has shaken the world. It had its origin in the age-long rivalries and imperialisms of Europe. Canada, as an outpost of a European country, was quickly engulfed some people, when they consider the national debt of over two and a quarter billions of dollars, are inclined to think the word "submerged" is more suitable. The conviction is slowly crystallizing in the minds of vast numbers of Canadians that the destiny of this country lies in the Western Hemisphere; that Canada's most natural allies are on this continent; and that a community of interest is the best safeguard for the future. This last exists beyond question between Canada and the United States.

There is, however, no sentiment in Canada for annexation-there never has been any of much extent. The Canadian people believe that there is room on this North American continent for two great nations; but they also believe that close co-operation is not inconsistent with national independence.

Of course there are many Imperialists in Canada who view with alarm any move towards closer business, or other, relations with any country other than Great Britain. There will likely always be a very strong sentimental tie between Canada and Great Britain; but propinquity and mutual interests are probably the stronger bonds. Canada now claims to be an independent nationstill, of course, under the British King -but free to choose her own path and her own goal.

Failing some unforeseen calamity, the slogan of 1911 is about as inanimate in Canada as a last year's bird's-nest."

D. M. LE BOURDAIS.

T

BY LYMAN ABBOTT

HE spirit in which General Lee and General Grant met at Appomattox Court House when, after four years of skillful and courageous fighting, the Southern leader surrendered to his chivalric antagonist augured well for the early establishment of friendly relations between the South and the North. These leaders truly represented their respective sections.

But the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which so quickly followed that surrender, wrought an almost instant revolution; it inspired bitterness in the North and despair in the South. President Johnson combined hatred of the ex-slaveholder with contempt for the ex-slave. For four years a new political battle raged between the South and the North after the four years of military battle had ended. There were statesmen who welcomed Grant's "Let us have peace," and saw clearly how it could be attained. If the ex-slaveholder and the ex-slave were to live prosperously together in the same community, mutual respect and mutual friendship must be cultivated between them. Years of education would be needed to prepare the uneducated Negro for

18

full citizenship. The burden of that education must not be thrown upon the South alone. Federal aid must be given to Southern education. But there were radicals of a different opinion. They held that suffrage is a natural right and that democracy means government by the majority. Their policy was: "Give the Negro the ballot and he will take care of himself. His late masters will be his enemies. If he cannot protect himself against them, the Federal Gov. ernment must protect him."

The incompetence and corruption which this policy inflicted on the South surpasses belief. James Ford Rhodes in his history of this period tells us that at first Southern men attempted to co-operate with the Republican party in rebuilding a new civilization on the ruins of that which slavery and war had destroyed. But they soon gave up the endeavor in despair. Nine-tenths of the Republican party in the South were Negroes; one-tenth was white; and the one-tenth were rarely wise and not always honest. The inevitable effect of this policy on the Republican party Henry Ward Beecher foretold in a graphic figure. "The radicals," he said

to me once, "are trying to drive the wedge into the log butt end foremost, and they'll only spilt their beetle." This they did.. By the second term of Grant's Administration the Republican party existed in two bitterly hostile factions.

Meanwhile the corruption which the radicals had unwittingly fastened on the South returned to plague the North. A successful war is almost inevitably followed by corruption. Germany suffered more from her victory in the FrancoPrussian War than France suffered from her defeat. The most corrupt period in our National history was that which followed the Civil War. It was the period of the carpetbag government in the Southern States, of the Tweed Ring in New York State, of the Crédit Mobilier in the Federal Government. The most corrupt election in our history was that which followed the second term of General Grant. Charges of intimidation, of fraudulent registration, of flagrant bribery, were preferred by each party against the other and were substantiated by indubitable evidence. When the election was over, it was very doubtful who had been elected. Threats of civil war were freely made by partisans; fears of civil war were seriously entertained by men behind the scenes. It was solemnly affirmed that 145,000 well-disciplined troops were ready to fight to seat the Democratic candidate. An army of men not disciplined and not organized, who had been thrown out of employment by one of the worst panics which ever struck the American market, were believed to be ready for a campaign of plunder. Three circumstances conspired to ward off the danger: the assurance that General Grant would use all the resources of the Nation to preserve order; the dread of civil war by a generation just emerging from one; and the poise of both the Presidential candidates who showed equal anxiety to secure a peaceable decision of the issue.

In the election Mr. Hayes had taken no such active part as has now become the fashion of Presidential candidates. In the post-election controversy his influence is indicated by a letter he wrote to Senator Sherman at New Orleans: "We are not to allow our friends to defeat one outrage and fraud by another. There must be nothing crooked on our part. Let Mr. Tilden have the place by violence, intimidation, and fraud, rather than undertake to prevent it by means that will not bear the severest scrutiny." Finally, by an almost unanimous consent a tribunal was created to determine the issue; and when this tribunal, by a majority of one, declared Mr. Hayes duly elected the decision was accepted by the Congress and by the country-sullenly, but still accepted. To this day history is doubtful whether this decision was right or wrong.