very last in their desperate board, where it has remained efforts to "saboter" the pro- for the last sixteen years! posed measure, and thus There are almost infallible inrender its application im- dications that if the present possible. They hope that mode of voting were main such a result would enable them to preserve their present position, and even improve it, at the General Elections in 1914, but it is infinitely more probable that it would lead to a most serious conflict between the Senate and the Chamber, which might easily be transformed into a constitutional crisis. Already, in presence of the agitation commenced by MM. Clemenceau and Combes, M. Lucien Victor Meunier has declared he will propose the abolition of the Senate, and demand the institution of one single legislative assembly. On its side the Journal l'Événement' reminds the inmates of the Luxembourg palace that long ago M. Guillemet presented to the Chamber a Bill for the election by universal suffrage of the delegates electing Senators. That Bill was voted by the Lower Assembly, but when it was sent to the Senate for discussion it was simply locked up in a cup tained the Radicals would lose more ground than if the proposed new method of consulting universal suffrage were applied. The great majority of the electors, being favourable to the adoption of proportional representation, would vent their resentment on those who had prevented its adoption. The wisest policy for the Radicals would be to cease their opposition and frankly accept the reform. Considering the chaotic condition of political parties in France at the present time, it would be rash to indulge in predictions concerning the outcome of elections made with the proposed new method of consulting universal suffrage. However, it is evident the better disciplined the the party, party, the greater must be its chances of obtaining the number of seats in the Chamber to which its importance in the country entitles it. T. F. FARMAN. 2 P VOL. CXCII.-NO. MCLXIV. MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD. AMERICA AND FAIR-PLAY-THE PANAMA CANAL-'THE BATTLE FOUR years ago when the American athletes, bearing the Marathon prize with them in triumph, returned to their States, three gentlemen, Messrs Sullivan, Kirby, and M'Cabe, made themselves the mouthpieces of outraged honour. "The attitude of the English officials," they declared, "was outrageous. . . . They taunted us in every conceivable way. They ridiculed our flag. . Their conduct was cruel, unsportsmanlike, and absolutely unfair." To these calumnies a full and convincing reply was given at once. The falsehoods of Messrs Sullivan, Kirby, and M'Cabe were duly nailed to the counter. They were nailed in vain. After Stockholm, as after London, the champions of American "sport" were noisily rancorous. They could not, on this occasion, bring false charges against the English officials. They were forced to content themselves with asserting at the top of their voices that the English are "the worst losers on earth," until at last they have stung to a reply the correspondent of "The Times,' who was a witness at Stockholm of the Olympic the Olympic Games. set down the following three plain facts, which, said he, were well known to everybody who watched the events in the Stadium: (1). "American runners in some of the races did as a team 'pocket' competitors of other nations in a way which it was impossible to regard as aceidental. (2) "As individuals they did on several occasions, besides, apparently with intention, swerving,' use their elbows to prevent the competitor of another nationality from passing. (3) "At the starts of some of the races, and these not all short distance events, they tried persistently to beat the pistol in a way that ruined the nerve of other competitors who were striving to be honest." That, together with the deliberate knocking down of hurdles, is not a bad record, and Mr Sullivan is to be congratulated upon his pupils. It is characteristic of American methods that no reasoned answer has been made to the charges of 'The Times' correspondent. The old parrot-ory has been raised that the English are bad losers, and that is all. Once This correspondent has told again it is a Mr Sullivan who the truth with a proper dignity battles for the honour of the and sense of fairness. He has United States. Whether he is the same gentleman who distinguished himself four years ago we know not. At any rate, in style and temper he is precisely similar. For the winning or losing of international races we care not a jot. Defeat ruffles as little as victory elates us. We have no desire to see the representatives of England turn out "brainy" runners. But, above all, we do not wish to be accomplices in the conspiracy of silence which inevitably surrounds the games grotesquely called "Olympic." An English athlete who helped to "pocket " an adversary or used his elbows would be detected at once and warned off the running - path for ever. There would be nothing more to say, and nothing more would be said. But if it be an American who errs, we hold our tongues, lest the susceptibilities of a "friendly nation" should be hurt. Even when we are obliged to take action, as we were when Carpenter fouled an opponent in 1908, we do it diffidently and with reluctance. The news of American trickery at Stockholm has reached us many weeks after the games are over and done with. Though we are grateful to 'The Times' correspondent for speaking out at last, our gratitude would have been greater had he revealed the truth at once. For secrecy in such matters as this does a double injustice. It is unjust to the other nations, which compete with America in good faith. It is unjust also to America, which is treated with a consideration due only If we persist to barbarians. ently give to America the benefit of a suppressed truth, we openly proclaim that it is not, as other countries, careful of its honour. It is only America, we seem to say, and what America does is of no consequence. Yet if America's shortcomings are thus ignored, how shall her athletes ever learn the lessons of fair-play? So long as they are the spoilt children of the Olympic Games they will behave like spoilt children, and take whatever advantages are offered them. The fault is not with the athletes. In 1908 Mr Peabody, an American, who disapproved of the methods of his countrymen, confessed that "the belief in London was that the American athletes were honest and sportsmanlike, but their actions and conduct were constantly hampered and misdirected by the American managers-the so-called Committee of Honour-and the professional trainers." That is perfectly true. The danger of professional trainers has been so well understood in England that their ministrations have been forbidden to amateurs. And it is at the very moment when the cause of America's indiscretions is plainly discovered that we are asked to follow her example. We are constantly exhorted to purchase victory by public subscription, to bribe professional trainers to cross the Atlantic, that in their hands our athletes may become "wise" as well as nimble, and learn to run with their heads as well as with their feet. It is not an alluring prospect. If each nation enlists its "rooters," and bows the knee to a "crowd" of sporting politicians, trained in some Tammany Hall of their own, then a free fight will be inevitable, and he will win the race who is quickest with his fists or handiest with his club. For our part, we are old-fashioned enough to prefer the simple ways of Englishmen, who still pursue sport for its own sake, and who believe that they can contend with another in fleetness of foot and strength of arm without the intervention of professional trickery. In the antics of the "crowd," of which, as 'The Times' correspondent says, "the best element in American life has a whole-hearted dislike," there is more than a suspicion of politics. By a piece of ill-luck, the so-called Olympic games are held in the same year as the election of America's President, when the well-known sport of twisting the lion's tail is still supposed to attract the votes of the Irish and German immigrants. Thus we can understand how athletics may be turned to profit by the party machine, and how the crowd," in insulting England, may gain something more solid than the applause of patriots. We have not forgotten that the eminent Mr Sullivan, who four years ago was loudest in his denunciation of England, boasted that he was the friend of Theodore Roosevelt. And if it be true that politics besmirches the sport of America with its ugly trail, it is no excuse, nay, it is rather an aggravation of the offence. For many years America has pleaded the exigencies of politics in extenuation of wanton insult and international bad faith. In doing this it has claimed a freedom which no civilised State could claim, and it has claimed this freedom on the ground of its youth. There is a time when the antics of youth pall upon us, when "youth" itself wears a spurious air, and the sooner America realises that it is not a young nation, but a congeries of the oldest peoples on the earth, the better will it be able to face the world with dignity and honour. No doubt we shall be told that the flagrant repudiation of the HayPauncefote Treaty is a mere freak of youth, that the demagogues who stamp it under foot are well-meaning gentlemen, and that we shall best consult our own interests by smiling under the affront of Mr Taft. Already, we note, a great part of the English press is busying itself in finding excuses for our adversaries. Not only does it busy itself in vain. It casts a slur upon the independence of America. Only the naughty child is forgiven if it wantonly breaks a window. Is America content to play the part of the naughty child for ever? When by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty the management of the Panama Canal was placed in the hands of the United States, certain definite conditions were imposed. The ships of all nations were promised the right of passage upon terms of perfect equality. "The leading There was to be no discrimina- reserved to the United States tion in favour of American the right to discriminate in ships. The good example was favour of its coast wise shipto be followed of the Suez ping. The amendment, as 'The Canal. The isthmus where Times'-which has done good thousands of white men had service by recalling a forgotten laid down their bones, cleft chapter of history-has told us, and purified at last, was to was defeated by 43 votes to 27. be a highroad equal and open And after this it is idle for for the ships of the world. Mr Taft to defend his conduct Thus would East and West by speech or to compose his be joined in a spirit of amity cunning memoranda. Nor is and goodwill. Thus would the the Bard amendment the only friendships of the nations be proof that the problem has strengthened. It was a pleas- always been clearly understood ant dream which the approach- in America. In March 1900 ing election will not allow Senator Davis submitted an to come true. At the mere argument to the Senate, which thought of the polling-booth, it is interesting to recall at Mr Taft throws to the winds the moment of Mr Taft's the plighted word of his repudiation. country. Truth matters not; honour matters not. All that matters is that he should snatch a few votes in a purely personal contest. His attempt to condone the offence is worse than the offence itself. The mere fact that, contrary to the usual practice, Mr Taft accompanies the signing of the Panama Canal Bill with a memorandum of defence proves that he knows himself to stand upon insecure ground. His attempt to explain the exemption of American coastwise trade from all tolls is worthy a pettifogging attorney. It claims no reasoned answer, and we hope that it will receive none. The pretence that this privilege was contemplated in the HayPauncefote Treaty is manifestly ridiculous. When that treaty was being discussed by the Senate, Senator Bard moved an amendment which Powers of Europe," said Senator Davis, "recognised the importance of this subject in respect of the Suez Canal, and ordained a public international Act for its neutralisation that is an honour to the civilisation of the age. It is the beneficent work of all Europe, and not of Great Britain alone. What ever canal is built in the Isthmus of Darien will be ultimately made subject to the same law of freedom and neutrality as governs the Suez Canal, as a part of the law of nations, and no single Power will be able to resist its control.” Here there is no uncertainty, no loophole of escape for Mr Taft. Explanation is unnecessary, defence impossible. Like the American runners, Mr Taft has proved himself incapable of fair-play. No doubt he believes that he has successfully pocketed his advisories and enhanced his fleetness of foot |