PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2330, 27 October 1898, Page 52

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Pros and Cons of an A.S. Alliance -. Federation or Isolation ? I take tliis heading in a very "wide sense, meaning the federation or the isolation of the Anglo-Saxon races, though some might think it would be just as well to bring about a federation in Australasia, and' then a Britannic one before bringing in the United States. But I take the broader view after reading several articles, written most of them by Americans, and advocating or discountenancing a defensive alliance between countries that should never have been separated. One writer in The Arena, is emphatically against it. And he •writes something like this : — " Britain is a partner, not a very willing one, we know, in the great combination of European States. Time and again she has objected in her surly way to the manner in which business is transacted by the 3?irm. Sometimes she has gone so far as to refuse to be assessed, or to sign the obligation of the company. But she is the first and most reputable member of the Firm. If she were to withdraw it would make the Bhine once more the bloodiest battlefield that has ever been known in human annals. It would set the roust-about Kaiser of the German Empire wild with all the opportunities and hazards of insane ambition. It would turn loose the Czar on Eastern Europe, and what would become of Armenia, Greece, Crete, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Montenegro, and their peoples? Considering all this and more, is there an Anglo-American alliance possible? Ho, for when it becomes necessary for Britain to decide for the United States or the Concert, the Concert it would be. To go in with Britain, then, would mean Europeanising America." The writer then reviews the European wars of the past couple of centuries, ending among others with the treaties of Ryswick, Utrecht, Aix la Chapelle, Paris, Vienna, Paris again, Frankfort, San Stefano and Berlin, and says it is the same old story : Mockery of promoting the interests of civilisation by preserving the Eastern governments, each against the rapacity of the others, by the hypocritical concord of the whole. The concord of Europe is a thing in every respect hurtful to human liberty ; it has nevsr promoted a single measure calculated to enlarge the dominion of freedom. It has stood for Absolutism, never for Liberalism. Apart from being dragged into European j politics and intrigue the writer is against any [ federation because Britain has a gold stant dard, and, worse still, has a monarchical form jof government. According to him monarchy | is a sham, a delusion. It is an offence against [ civilisation, and as long as it exists standi ing armies and navies will exist too. i Now, I think the writer's words are open jto criticism, and very much so. Isn't it possible ,that if the United States were to be | allied to Britain the Union would prevent the | European bloodshed he so shudderingly i thinks of? May not isolation mean eventui ally annihilation of the commerce of both? | and it appears from present prospects in the United States and from the reality in France that monarchies are not alone' in having armies and navies. But I shall let another American answer, and one who wrote in the same number ot the Arena. He, like many more, looks beyond the narrow horizon bounded by the United States. He cannot view the States as i a self-contained country which can indefinitely keep out of the world's politics, and while remaining isolated expand itself commercially, when opposed to the protective policies of the nations opposed to Britain. He says that no question that has arisen since the civil war has been fraught with such momentous and far-reaching consequences as the proposed federation of the AngloSason world, a federation by which the English-speaking people will be a controlling factor in shaping the destinies of the future. No other proposition flashed upon modern civilisation has so profoundly stirred ' the world as this proposal, which has been made possible by Britain's bold and firm stand

from the time that Spain, France, Austria, and Germany tried <to force the United States to submit to European intervention. Indeed, since the opening of the war, Britain and sometimes Britain alone has stood between the United States and the humiliation planned by the powers of continental Europe with the hope of bolstering up a tottering thrcne, and this was never more noticeable than after Admiral Dewey's victory, when the continental powers sought to meddle in a way that would have placed the United States in an extremely embarrassing if not humiliating position. This friendly attitude, combined with the more or less thinly disguised hostility of the other great European powers has tended greatly to strengthen the natural bonds that naturally exist. The Anglo - Saxon alliance appeals with peculiar force to philosophical students of history, because the suggested alliance is manifestly a logical union ,and us such would possess the elements essential to permanency and strength. It would be along the lines" of the destiny which is being worked out by both peoples, therefore the bond of union would in all probability grow stronger and closer as time passed. This would be impossible were there less community of interest between the nations. Take an instance. Russia and the United States were drawn together against Britain. WhyV Russia, having an ever-present idea of possessing Asia, has a deep-rooted antipathy to Britain, her undoubted rival. The United States was antagonistic before the Revolution ; this antagonism was increased by the war of 1812, and has since been intensified by American Protection being pitted against British Prectrade, for marvellous as has been the growth of American commerce, it still has to acknowledge the British supremacy, and most signally so when it comes to a question oi shipping. Hence the Russo-American alliance against Britain. But any student ot history knows that any alliance based upon antipathies, and antipathies only, cannot be a permanent one. The Government of the Czar is the embodiment of Absolutism, while that of the United States is the personification of Renublicanifcm. How can the two coalesce? "The same may be said of the Russo -French alliance. But how different an Anglo-American alliance would be. Beyond a common blood, language, mutual interests, rises the factor which above all others is fundamental, and that is the common ideal or goal to which the moral energies of both people are moving, the spirit which permeates the Englishspeaking nations — namely, popular sovereignty or self-government ; that is, Republicanism in essence. Germany and Russia personify despotism; the English-speaking world stands in a real way for free government or popular sovereignty. The writer then goes on to show how little of popular government obtains in any continental power, not even excepting France, whose President, with his quarter of a million pounds a year and his military household, is indistinguishable from any European sovereign. But the one I refer to at the head of this Chat, and who is against the Anglo-Ameri-can alliance because of the theoretical diffeiences in mode of government, is met very effectively by what this writer in favour ot the union has to say on the point. In theory Britain is a monarchy, and therefore opposed to the United States; but in practice Britain is viewed by the continental powers as essentially Republican. Indeed, the Queen has less power in law-making than the President, who has the veto, a very potent weapon. There is greater freedom of speech and action among the working classes in Britain than has been possible for some time in the United States. True, Britain has her House of Lords, made up of hereditary holders of seats; but the United States has a Senate composed of men who are not truly representative, but who represent corporations, • trusts, and other forms of capital inimical to democracies. The telegraphs, as well as the post offices, are national businesses in Britain and municipal reforms have gone much further. Since 1840 an unprejudiced man must admit that Britain has progressed more rapidly along the highway of Republicanism -than Americans have. Truly she has further to go ; but the United States has rather retrogaded than advanced. Such, in effect, is what this writer has to say about the proposed alliance, from the standpoint of a" student of history ; and a very good basis it is to reason from. He then goes on to say why, apart from historical analogies, a union ought to come about. And a third writer I intended noticing is in favour of the alliance, but on different grounds. The subject, however, is such an interesting one, and is of such wide importance, that 'I think I must be excused if 1 inflict you with another dose of AngloAmerican federation next week. So I'll wind up with " to be continued in our next."