Oe duds, 
 
 BRITISH RULE IN INDIA 
 
 Extract from Speech. 
 
 LEAGUE OF NATIONS 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. JOSEPH IRWIN FRANCE 
 
 OF MARYLAND 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 OCTOBER 8 and 9, 1919 
 
 Sg 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1919 
 151429-—20190 . 
 
’ 
 1 
 + 
 ‘ 
 + 
 . 
 e 
 { 
 
 penn 
 
 te 
 
SPEECH 
 
 or 
 
 HON. JOSEPH IRWIN FRANCE. 
 
 BRITISH RULE IN INDIA. 
 
 Mr. FRANCH. Sirs, do you feel justified in the ratification 
 of a treaty under which this Republic guarantees to perpetuate 
 the rule of the British aristocracy in India, a rule out of har- 
 mony with all of the best traditions of the English people, one 
 characterized by a ruthless exploitation which has received for 
 generations the condemnation of the liberal statesmen of 
 England? 
 
 You can not convince the American people that the rule of 
 Britain in India has been benevolent. The American youth 
 of several generations have learned At their mothers’ knees, in 
 their churches, and at their schools the tragic story of India’s 
 poverty and agony as she lies-helpless and prostrate in error’s 
 chains. ‘They have seen the ghastly pictures of those weak, 
 emaciated, poverty-stricken Hindus, buman specters, living 
 skeletons, 50,000,000 of whom suffer the unceasing torture of 
 hunger gnawing at their vitals as they live ever in the deep 
 gloom of ignorance and sorrow and under the ever-haunting 
 shadow of death by slow starvation. They have heard the 
 tragic, awful history of her cholera, plagues, and famines, and 
 have given generously for her relief. India, one of the earliest 
 homes of our Aryan race, was in some respects the greatest of 
 all the empires. Her civilization reaches back beyond the 
 dawn of history. Three thousand years before the Christian 
 era she carried on an extended commerce with mighty Babylon. 
 Two thousand years before Christ the Egyptian monarchs 
 wore her exquisitely woven fabrics and used her fine muslins 
 for the winding sheets of their sacred dead. Six centuries be- 
 fore our era on the banks of the Indus our Aryan ancestors 
 
 15142920190 3 
 
4 
 
 had builded a civilization, with customs, arts, architecture, and 
 literature: of peculiar dignity and beauty. They worked with 
 marvelous skill in iron, copper, brass, and the precious metals. 
 In their sculpture they emulated and approached the match- 
 less purity and beauty of the Grecian marbles. In their 
 philosophy they surpassed the Hgyptians and anticipated the 
 Greeks. The Brahman. priests of India advanced the as- 
 tronomy of China and Keypt. Her science, agriculture, and 
 industry flourished through wonderful centuries and she grew 
 in wealth and power, her fabulous riches at last making her 
 the treasure house of the world. In the fifteenth century the 
 tales of her marvelous resources became known to the western 
 peoples. The Portuguese came, then the Dutch and the French, 
 put after the Battle of Plassy, in 1757, England’s supremacy 
 was established and she assumed responsibility for India’s 
 destiny. Judged by the ancient standards, Britain’s rule might 
 find something to commend it, but measured by the best tradi- 
 tions and ideals of the English people, no man can successfully 
 defend it. India was rich. The British exploitation, which 
 has exalted and enriched Hngland, has stricken India down 
 into the depths of desperate poverty. 
 INDIA’S POVERTY, 
 BWdamund Burke said, in 1783: 
 
 There is nothing before the eyes of the natives [of India] but an end- 
 ess, hopeless prospect of new flights of birds of prey and passage, with 
 their appetites continually renewing for food that is continually wasting. 
 
 The Rev. Abbe J. A. Dubois—1820—English missionary of 
 Mysore, said: 
 
 Alas, it is not Bibles the poor Hindus want or ask for; it is food and 
 raiment. When the belly is empty and the back bare, the best disposed, 
 éven amons the Christians, feel themselves but very little inclined to 
 peruse the Bible. , 
 
 Sir W. W. Hunter—1880—said : 
 
 There remain 40,000,000 of people who go ihrough life on insuflicient 
 food, 
 
 Sir Charles Eliot—1888—chief commissioner of Assam, said: 
 
 lalf the agricultural population do not know from one year’s end to 
 another what it is to have a full meal. 
 
 151429—20190 
 
5 
 
 Sir William Digby—1900-——in Prosperous British India, 
 states: 
 
 In 1900 the agricultural population increased by 60,000,000. If the 
 same income remains in 1900 as in 188-, it follows that 40,000,000 
 (according to Sir W. W. Hunter) plus 50,000,000 make 90,000,000, who 
 are continuously hungry in British India at the heginning of the twen- 
 tieth century. 
 
 R, C. Dutt—1902—an English authority, states: 
 
 The extreme poverty of the people is becoming patent every, day. © * * 
 lt is estimated from official records that one-fifth of the Indian rural 
 population, or between forty or fifty million people, are insufficiently fed, 
 even in years of good harvest. * * * India alone sends us a tragic 
 tale of poverty, famine, and death. 
 
 Rey. J. 'T. Sunderland—1905—American missionary in India, 
 states: 
 
 The poverty of India is something you can have little conception 
 of, * * * The extreme, abject, the awful poverty of the people. 
 
 Hon. Samuel Edwin Montagu, state secretary for India in 1917, 
 stated: 
 
 But it (India) is still a country of .poverty. The majority of the 
 people live on a few rupees a month, and it takes three rupees to make 
 
 an American dollar. Their country has vast resources awaiting develop- 
 ment, but the people are still very poor, 
 
 R,. C. Dutt, in his Economic History of India, 1900, states : 
 
 The appalling poverty and joylessness of his life under such condi- 
 tions can not be easily pictured. THis hut is seldom rethatched and 
 affords little shelter from cold and rain; his wife is clothed in rags; 
 his little children go without clothing. Of furniture he has none; an 
 old blanket is quite a luxury in the cold weather, and if his children 
 can tend cattle or his wife can do home work to cke out his income he 
 considers himself happy. It is literally a fact and not a figure of speech 
 that agricultural laborers and their families in India generally suffer 
 from insufficient food from year’s end to year’s end. 
 
 Mrs, Annie Besant, June, 1919, in the London Daily Herald, 
 states: 
 
 About half the people of India get only one meal a fay and that is 
 not a sufficient meal. The average life of an individual is only 23 
 years; in Hngland it is 40 years and in New Zealand 60 years. The 
 real danger is a hunger revolution. 
 
 Sir Frederick Treyes, 1904, then the most distinguished sur- 
 geon in England, stated, after a visit to India: 
 
 Possibly the first impression of India which sueceeds the realization 
 of the strangeness of all things is an impression of teeming life—of 
 
 the unwonted numbers of living beings, human and animal, who crowd 
 the land. The country would seem to be overrun by a multitude of 
 
 151429—20190 
 
6 
 
 menu, women, and children, all of about the same degree, a little below 
 the most meager comfort and a little above the nearest reach of starva- 
 tion. These are some of the great hordes who provide in their lean 
 bodies victims for the yearly sacrifice to cholera, famine, and plague. 
 Plague will slay 20,000 in a week, cholera ten times that number in a 
 year, and the famine of one well-remembered time accounted for five 
 and a guarter millions of dead people. 
 
 The extreme poverty of India is indicated by the following 
 figures giving the comparative per capita wealth and income for 
 several of the countries: 
 
 Comparative table, 
 
 { 
 National | National 
 wealth per | income per 
 capita. | capita. 
 
 : _ ee ee 
 United States. .... sigsbwadtweuctechan. aacoecmttesas semen $2,154. 00 | $372. 00 
 Groat. Britaine, i221 - selseclne tsa e dela aie cee awaetoaia eee aerate 1, 913.00 | 232.00 
 MTAN Che hoch ana ean eae SEER C Satire eccorecsnccr 1, 238.00 | 182.00 
 Germialty si... clone deeieteeree cine see RAR Gao a wtiae CAnaaot 1, 512.00 | 156.00 
 Augtria- HUN gary. . <2 se. aie sem sone main aamns’apicinnclereisiabiae gees 1,121.00 112.00 
 tales Se 2 oe cinthe sete aires Sola ee conor eRe eee 555. 00 111.00 
 India. Mr an pec ceeeiiee eae ee SS eer | bcp ae he | 70.00 | 9.75 
 
 These figures are compiled frem the World Almanac. 
 
 There is abundant evidenee in the testimony of Englishmen 
 that poverty in India has heen for years increasing. S. S. 
 Thorburn, financial commissioner of the Punjab, said that 
 “seventy millions of Indians are in such a condition of hopeless 
 poverty that nothing can relieve them.” This poverty has been 
 brought about by the vast and continuous drain by England on 
 India’s resourees. After the battle of Plassy this drain began. 
 Brooks Adams. in his “ Law of Civilization and Decay,” page 
 305, states: 
 
 The savings of millions of human beings for centuries, the English 
 seized and took to London, as the Romans had taken the spoils of 
 Greece and Pontus to Italy. What the value of the treasure was no 
 man can estimate, but it must bave been many millions of pounds—a 
 vast sum in proportion to the stock ef precious metals then owned in 
 Murope. 
 
 This plunder and exploitation has continued in various forms. 
 ¥. J. Shore. a retired Bengal administrator, states: 
 
 The fundamental principle of the English has been to make the whole 
 Indian nation subservient, in every possible way, to the interests and 
 benefits of themselves. They have taxed to the utmost limit; every 
 suecessive Province, as it has fallen into our possession, has ‘been made 
 a field for higher exaction, and it has always been our boast how 
 
 151429—20190 
 
 EEE 
 
fe 
 
 greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers 
 were able to extort. The Indians have been exeluded from every honor, 
 dignity, or office which the lowest Englishman could be prevailed on to 
 aeceent. 
 
 A. J. Wilson, in The Forinightly Review, March, 1SS+4, states: 
 
 In one form or another, we draw fully thirty millions of pounds a 
 year from that unhappy country (India), and then the average wage of 
 the natives is about £2 per annum, less, rather than more, in. many 
 parts. Our Indian tribute, therefore, represents the entire earnings of 
 upward of six million heads of families, say of thirty millions of people. 
 It means the abstraction of more than ene-tenth of the entire sustenanee 
 of India every year. 
 
 Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lenroor in the chair). 
 Does the Senator from Maryland yield to the Senator from Ne- 
 braska ? 
 
 Mr. FRANCE. I do. 
 
 Mr. NORRIS. I should like to inquire from whom the Sen- 
 ator is reading? 
 
 Mr. FRANCE. A. J. Wilson, an Englishman, in the Fort- 
 nightly Review. These are nearly all extracts from the writ- 
 ings of Englishmen. I have not quoted anything from the 
 writings of any other than the English, except in one instance, 
 where I quote from J. T. Sunderland, an American ex-mission- 
 ary, a profound and sympathetic student of Indian affairs, 1 
 have purposely not chosen any eriticisms which were not written 
 by Englishmen themselves. 
 
 This statement would seem to be almost incredible but for 
 the supporting evidence we find on every hand of the continual 
 drain on India by England in the form of interest, of official 
 Salaries, and of land taxation. In his work on “ Wamines in 
 India,” page 17, R. C. Dutt, also an Englishman, shows clearly 
 that “the intensity and frequency of recent famines are greatly 
 due to the vesourceless condition and chronic poverty of the cul- 
 tivators, caused by the overassessment of the soil on which they 
 depend for a living.” 
 
 In this work Mr. Dutt pleads for tax reforms and asks that 
 the tax ‘‘rate may not exceed one-fifth of the gross produce 
 of the soil in any case *—preface 15—and states, “ the principle 
 was adopted in the settlement of the central Provinces that 
 
 15142920190 
 
8 
 
 one-half the net product of the soil should be paid.” “ Virtwally, 
 
 therefore, the rent fixed was one-third of the gross produce,” 
 
 and cesses for improvements are levied in addition to this. 
 Keir Hardie stated: 
 
 The amount of taxes raised direct from the peasant is from 50 per 
 cent to 75 per cent of the value of the yield of the land, in addition 
 to which they have to pay local cesses, and yarious other small 
 items, so that probably not less than 75 per cent of the harvest goes 
 in taxes. * * * [Tt is this fact which keeps the people of India 
 in a condition of hopeless grinding poverty. : 
 
 The burden of such taxatien can be better understood when 
 we recall that the Indian income is about $10 per capita per 
 year, and that even very light taxes must oppress those whe 
 are So poor. 
 
 Of course, the people have the poorest and scantiest of 
 clothing and the utmost insufficiency of fare. Quoting from an- 
 other Englishman: “It is unusual to find a village woman who 
 has any wraps at all. Most of them have to pass the night as 
 best they can in their day clothes, a petticoat, wrapper, and 
 bodice. As a rule they and their children sleep, in the cold 
 weather, during the warm afternoons and in the early hours of 
 the night.” 
 
 The people can exist, if existence it can be called, on almost nothing. 
 “The most instructive fact brought out by inquiries into the condition 
 of five families of the laborer class was the extraordinary cheapness of 
 a bare subsistence. A Baiga basket maker, whose family consisted of 
 his wife and two small children, made on an average 12 baskets a week, 
 which he sold for 2 pounds of unhusked rice or millet each. His 
 monthly earnings were thus about 100 pounds of unhusked rice, worth 
 rather less than a rupee. The family not only managed to live on this, 
 supplemented with jungle fruits and roots, but saved annually about a 
 rupee’s worth of grain, wherewith they purchased the scanty clothing 
 which sufficed for them.” This should be, as it probably is, the world’s 
 record in cheap living. The average works out thus: 
 
 5. 
 Total earnings in, food per annym 2-2... a 1G 
 Less saving for clothing a. ee ee ee darn ow eee ae 1 
 dapaw le Tor. LOOt. See ae ei ccs ea ea ae 15 
 
 This was to be divided among four persons. (Dighy “ Prosperous 
 British India,” p, 499.) 
 
 A native peasant of India is fertunate io have fer a meal one 
 handful of rice once a day. Truly, it is a Jand of hunger. 
 Hardie said: 
 
 The veal rat plague in India is poverty, and the flea which spreads Che 
 disease is the Government. The cmaciated, bloodless bedies ef the ryot 
 151429—-20190 
 
9 
 
 has not plague-resisting powers, and so the fell disease finds him an easy 
 victim. 
 
 The Rey. J, Tf. Sunderland, formerly missionary from Amer- 
 ica, a deep and sympathetic student of India, in the New England 
 Magazine, September, 1900, said; 
 
 The fact that at the end of 200 years of commercial dominance, and 
 more than 40 years of absolute political sway, we are confronted with 
 such indescribable poverty of the people, and with famine after famine 
 of ‘such magnitude and severity as to make the world stand aghast, 
 seems to prove beyond answer that England * * * has not made 
 the welfare of India the first aim, but has subordinated India’s good to 
 her own enrichment. We have the hideous business that Rome and 
 Spain were engaged in so long, and for which in the end they paid so 
 dear, ‘Called by its right name: What is the treatment of India by 
 Hngland? It is national parasitism; it is the stronger nation sucking 
 the blood of the weaker. It is imperialism. 
 
 The deaths from famine, from 1854 te 1901, are estimated at 
 28,825,000, and during the last 10 years of that peried the 
 ayerage was 1,000,000 deaths each year, or on the average, as 
 has been caleulated— 
 
 Two British subjects passed away from starvation or starvation in- 
 duced diseases every minute of every day and every night from Jan- 
 uary i, 1899, to September 80, 1901. (Digby, “Prosperous British 
 India,” page 130.) 
 
 The peopte live in miserable, dark, unventilated huts, with 
 thatched roofs often out of repair, and Johns Seurr, in the 
 London Herald, of May 4, 1919, describing the living cemitions 
 of the millhand, said: 
 
 The vast masses of the millhands are housed under the most in- 
 describable, filthy conditions, and one is not surprised to learn that 
 the people die of famines, plague, and cholera like fleas. 
 
 One of the further causes of this poverty, in addition to the 
 drain ‘by official salaries, interest and high taxation, has been the 
 
 virtual destruction by discriminatory tariffs against India and in 
 faver of Wneland, designed to exclude Indian fabrics from the 
 fnglish and Puropean markets, of the cotton-weaving industry 
 of India. Owing to the unjust and oppressive tariffs the distafts 
 of Tadia ‘disappeared before the power looms of Manchester. The 
 manufacturers of England cruelly crushed out their helpless 
 
 Indian competitors. 
 TLIATERACY. 
 
 Prepese this test to any colonial policy. Does it seck te edu- 
 cate the colonial peoples? If it does, its aim is elevation and 
 151429—20190 ; 
 
10 
 
 liberation. If it does not, it is directed to that heartless ex- 
 ploitation which ends in the degradation of the native people. 
 By this test Erfeland has failed. India had an educational 
 system. The English destroyed it. The sums spent by England 
 for education in India are pitifully small, $0.015 per annum per 
 capita, as against the $4 per capita which we have expended 
 in the Philippines. Only 6,780,721 out of about 75,000,000 chil- 
 dren in India attend school, and the illiteracy among these peo- 
 ple, who are of the very highest intellectual capacity, is 93 
 per cent, whereas during our 20 years of rule in the Philip- 
 pines we have reduced the illiteracy there to 56 per cent. 
 Seven per cent of the Hindus of the Aryan race, after 140 
 years of British rule, are literate, as against 44 per cent of the 
 Filipinos after 20 years of our rule there. England’s national 
 policy, for so long dictated by a reactionary aristocracy, has 
 never been favorable to the education of the masses at home, 
 and it has opposed comprehensive plans for the education of the 
 colonial people. Against this reactionary policy the liberals 
 of England have for years protested. With reference to colonial 
 peoples the British ruling Glass has said: 
 
 We do not want generals, statesmen, and legislators; we want indus- 
 irious husbandmen. 
 
 In July of 1833, during a memorable debate upon the question 
 of education in India, particularly with reference to the educa- 
 tion of Hindus for public office, Lord Ellenborough said: 
 
 We had won the Hmpire of India by the sword, and we must pre- 
 serve it by the same means, doing at the same time everything that is 
 consistent with our existence there for the good of the people, 
 
 On July 10, 1833, Macaulay, speaking in opposition to Lord 
 Hlienborough and in favor of the bill, which was to prevent the 
 exclusion of Hindus from office in India, enunciated in a few 
 great, burning, and immortal sentences the principles upon 
 which a sound and upbuilding colonial policy should be based: 
 
 We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India 
 can be admitted to high civil and military office. We are told that this 
 is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told that we are 
 bound to confer on our subjects—every benefit which they are capable 
 of enjoying? No. Which it is in our power to confer on them? No, But 
 Which we can confer on them without hazard to our own domination. 
 Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with 
 
 151429—20190 
 
#1 
 
 sound policy and sound morality. * * ™ It is the most childish 
 ambition to covet dominion which adds to no man’s comfort or security. 
 To the great trading nation, to the great manufacturing nation, no 
 progress which any portion of the human race can make in knowledge, in 
 taste for the conveniences of life, or in the wealth by which those con- 
 yenieneces are produced, can be a matter of indifference. It is scarcely 
 possible to calculate the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion 
 of EKurepean civilization among the yast population of the Hast. It 
 would be on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the 
 people of India were well governed and independent of us than ill gov. 
 erned and subject to us—that they were ruled by their own Kings, but 
 wearing our broadcloth and working with our cutlery, than that they 
 were performing their salaams to English collectors and English magis- 
 trates, but were too ignorant to value or too poor to buy English manu- 
 factures. To trade with civilized men is infinitely more profitable than 
 to govern savages. That would indeed be a doting wisdom which, in 
 order that India might vemain a dependency, would keep it a useless 
 and costly dependeney, which would keep a hundred millions of men 
 from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our 
 slaves. It was, as Bernier tells us, the practice of the miserable tyrants 
 whom he found in India, when they dreaded the capacity and spirit of 
 some distinguished subject, and yet could not venture to murder him, to 
 administer to him 2a daily dose of the pousta, a preparation of opium, 
 the effeet of which was in a few months to destroy all the bodily and 
 mental powers of the wretch who was drugged with it, and to turn him 
 into a helpless idiot. That detestable artifice, more horrible than as- 
 sassination itself, was worthy of those who employed it. It is no model 
 for the English nation. We shall never consent to administer the pousta 
 to a whole community, to stunefy and paralyze a great people whom 
 God has committed to our charge for the wretched purpose of rendering 
 them more amenable to our control. What is that power worth which 
 is founded on yviee, on ignorance, on misery, which we can hold only 
 by violating the most sacred duties, which as governors we owe to the 
 governed, which as a people blessed with fax more than an ordinary 
 measure of political liberty and of intellectual light, we owe to a race 
 debased by 3,000 years of despotism and priesteraft? We are free, we 
 are civilized to little purpose if we grudge to any portion of the human 
 race an equal measure of freedom and civilization. 
 
 Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may 
 keep them submissive, or do we think that we can give them knowledge 
 without awakening ambition, or do we mean to awaken ambition and 
 to provide it with no legitimnte vent? Who will answer any of these : 
 questions in the affirmative? Yet, one of them must be answered in the 
 affirmative by every person who maintains that we ought permanently 
 to exclude the natives from high office. I have no fears. The path of 
 duty is plain before us, and it is also the path of wisdoni, of national 
 prosperity, of national honer. 
 
 The destinies ef our Indiau Dmpire are covered with thick darkness. 
 It ig difficult to ferm any conjecture as to the fate reserved for a state 
 which resembles no other in history and which forms by itself a sepa- 
 rate class of political phenomena. The laws which regulate ifs growth 
 and its deeay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind 
 of India may expand under ow system till it has outgrown that system ; 
 that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity 
 for better government; that, having become instructed in European 
 knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. 
 
 151429—20190 ‘ 
 
12 
 
 Whether such a day will ever come I know not, but never will I attempt 
 to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day 
 in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest 
 depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have 
 made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would 
 indeed be a title to glory all cur own. ‘The scepter may pass away from 
 us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of 
 policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms, but there are triumphs 
 which are followed by no reverses. There is an empire exempt from all 
 national causes of decay. These triumphs are the pacific triumphs of 
 reason over barbarism; that empire is the imperishable empire of our 
 arts and our morals, our literature and our law. (Vol, 19 (34d ser.), 
 p. 536.) ; 
 
 What a great colonial policy is outlined in these most cloquent 
 words. Would that England might have followed the vision of 
 that imperishable empire declared by this gifted and devoted 
 champion of the oppressed. But it was not to be. Bourbonism 
 never yields. It must be broken, crushed beneath the tires of 
 time and progress. Great Englishmen have seen the vision, 
 but the iron clutch of the reactionaries could not be loosed. 
 
 And so, at the conclusion of this war, when the millions of 
 India, whose sons had fought for England and fer us on the 
 strength of our promises of self-determination and freedom for 
 all peoples, demanded that right of self-determination, the in- 
 famous Rowlatt act was passed, making the discussion of those 
 demands a crime punishable with penalties of utmost severity. 
 And then occurred one of the most impressive spectacles of our 
 generation. Millions of the people of India, on a given day, with- 
 out respect to the creeds Which had divided them, forsook their 
 tasks and went into each other’s temples and mosques to pray 
 for liberation. Unarmed, they undertook a passive resistance. 
 They threw themselves before moving cars and were killed as a 
 protest against their slavery. Yet these unarmed, helpless, pro- 
 testing people were ruthlessly mowed down by the British ma- 
 chine guns and slaughtered by bombs from the air. Thus did 
 Ingland answer their plea for the self-determination which she 
 and we had promised would be the fruit of this war. And at 
 this very moment, I am informed, Indian troops are being used 
 to crush that same plea for the fulfillment of our promises in 
 Kgypt and in Ireland, the song of a poor and erushed people 
 being employed to keep other oppressed peoples in subjection. 
 
 151429—-20190 
 
 se 
 
1 
 
 Go 
 
 The yellow grain comes only from the flail and purified gold 
 only from the fire. England needed to be chastened, and she has 
 now passed through the furnaces of trial and agony. 
 
 Her reactionary representatives and colonial administrators 
 at Paris tried to play the old diplomacy and wrote this despicable 
 document; but, sirs, retribution, slow-footed, but inevitable, has 
 overtaken them. At last the fires of liberty which Washington, 
 Hamilton, Jefferson, and Lincoln kindled here upon this Western 
 
 ‘ontinent have illuminated the world and are consuming the old 
 order. They have now warmed the hearts and are now shining 
 in the faces of the 20,000,000 of members of this great new 
 liberal party in England, who in the increasing light have them- 
 selyes seen and have sworn to achieve what our commen an- 
 cestors foresaw. 
 
 England has failed in India, failed in Egypt, failed in all of 
 Africa, because ef the successful resistance by her reactionary 
 ieaders of this great colonial policy which has been urged by 
 Macaulay and a long line of illustrious English liberals, and 
 which now, under the liberal leadership which has been all but 
 established in England as a result of the war, will become her 
 permanent national policy, But in spite of what we hope from 
 that liberal leadership in England, and however much we may 
 desire to cooperate with it, we can not justify ourselves in sign- 
 ing and sealing an international contract which gives and guar- 
 antees to England nearly 931,000 additional square miles, a ter- 
 ritory in area of approximately one-third of the United States, 
 in Africa, and places in her charge more than 11,000,000 addi- 
 tional helpless African natives, in view of her past policy in the 
 Dark Continent, which policy has been characterized by heart- 
 less exploitation, with practically no attempt to benevolently 
 and intelligently elevate the peoples there, 
 
 151429-—20190 
 
 O 
 
A - ' a 
 4 
 c j \ \ - ae 
 a f : 
 = 
 , - = 
 ~ . Ft PAS. 
 + , 
 Z. + 8S 
 =~ ‘ 
 
 -_ =. f DTA Ase, Ha set f TPO? mn ore snd a re = Pe 
 a ak 1%. Far: Soe ieee tes Aen feyalt dike ahi a 
 “a , et Ne ae 
 ; ro. eS aye cae) Feb ee eae Se ae 2p Ae s1ih Frey 
 
 M wet 5 PM obs os 
 4 p 
 Sata se ¢ Ses: , 
 a : a4 a: ‘ 4 
 7 v ' ic ae AVE 
 ‘i oe 2 eee 
 cd 3M 65: fs Ae ee 
 ~ { we ‘ Ji, Oger ee ote net ant a 
 y sch ane! Ti ORE Gies GE Onis Fae Sree 
 =) : ae 
 4k) ore 3 Lies et Rahat ae ie hehe 
 * tT Ve ene Re iy eh Po 
 ‘ Pi «hee We iy as ke Wer 
 ’ oe id i tbe Wee te yey ia oes Bey —— if 
 Sigs) ey nts ee wala th if f i Tips ey 
 AIG SARS: VF We oe hie 
 “Og n eet atra +. [oy eye Sayer WTR ee, 
 ‘ Z ey ama? ee at | ifthe" hy | vey alsin RE te 
 to eet ei ap SPE Pl hsig ticciot +e fepacge 
 Ae Ae alah 18 ignipde Peet Came 
 tpt. bid Te or {Pitta AERA 8 
 ‘ea saen ey (izeat ee Peed th as lige 
 (rate ¢ eae Te +e Se ae et il? weg Saat - 
 ‘ / r 3 As ; ¥ a 
 ML TEEE 9 Wie Fie ae abla) Ain Yager: 
 KEE E Co yihere” SE Re ret ne a baloateiat 
 ry ‘ toh Feett ort Te zoe p (i a HES pie ieee 
 ‘ CR Pets? ee Tae eee five Hie: ee 
 LNT ERIN os Tah Mie ge Waa leer titer’? Cane 
 4 f . ad ited -- a 
 CP a SE ts tab ead 
 ) Cy q 
 * J . 
 P = 
 ‘ 
 ' 7 : ¥ fs ‘ 
 % “ a 
 i =~ 
 =, 7 , 
 - ¢ ¥ 
 f 
 4 ae ‘ 
 . > 7 ‘ y 
 ~ 2 ‘ ca 
 fl y st oe. 
 > 4s : f ini? 
 
. = 5 
 
 : * r 7 
 4 ‘ct an: Ve mere 
 \ a sa : 
 
oan