The advocate., 1891-11-04

other, works OF similar import and of
unquestioned reliability will hardly
deny that the conditions described in
the article quoted from our London
exchange really exist. While we
commend our correspondent for his
love Of native land" we believe he
has not thoroughly studied its eco
nomic policy or made himse. { familiar
with the conditions of all classes of
its people. Nor do we believe he has
fully measured the possibilities Of
England's future attitude toward the
existing reform movement in the
United States in the event it should
come to be believed that this move
ment threatens the financial interests
OF that country or it's subjects. With
this comment We append the COM
munication which is as follows:
FLORENCE Kans., October "a, 1891.
EDITOR ADVOCATE: inserted an attack
on my native country two weeks since Culled
from unreliable sources and have rejected my
correction Had you moral right so to act?
Again this week you insert culllng from
another Alliance paper to the effect that there is
possible danger Of Great Britain making an
armed Intervention in this country in favor of
our plutOcracy. The ignorance or the maleVO-
lence which would prompt such statement is
as profound as the bOttOmless pit. There are
two amongst a hundred all sufficient reasons
which would stop such step on the part Of
Great Britain.
FlrSt-She would not If she could, notwith-
standing all the blackguard talk against England
by certain Of our politicians. The masses Of the
people on those islands have friendly feeling
toward the people Of the United States. speak
Of that know.
Sec0nd-Great Britain could not If she wished,
not having sufficient army for the purpose
Nothing but prolonged provOcatiOn or attack
would make Great Britain go to war with this
country. It would be fratricidsl and viewed
with adherence. N. B.-AlthOugh the people
do not at present rule In the United States,
they do most decidedly in Great Britain.
What may or may not be the aim Of few
capitalists resident in London, but Of no par
ticular nationality, is entirely separate from the
government AMI people Cthe same thing of
Great Britain. Again say, speak Of what
know. You, SIR, and others deplOre and try to
put down the bloody shirt talk as against the
sonth, saying that 1t Is time to shake hands and
have done with quarreling, ETC., etc. Then on
what grounds Go you flourish an older blood
stained rag, relic Of the time OF some five
generations ago? Is there any justification for
this saVagery, for it is nothing BETTER no. for no
Intelligent Engllshman Of to-day but will admit
that In the revolutionary war the Tories were In
the right and Great Britain In the wrong. 1t
just occurs to me that some ''smarty" win cite
the case of Egypt. There is no analogy between
the possible state cited by that paper and that
OF Egypt. Egypt has degraded population
which never had governed or been able to
govern itself. There was imminent danger of
anarchy and the destruction of the lives and
property OF European residents. There was also
the danger Of a financial paralysis which would
have seriously effected all the money markets.
And lastly, and far away the most important
reason for Intervention, was the danger of the
obstruction If not the destruction of the Suez
canal and the break lu the Indian communica-
tons.
England stepped In as policeman with the
consent OF Europe. The results have exceeded
expectations. Forced (unpald) labor Of the
peaSantry has been abolished, taxes have been
fairly collected and accounted for instead Of
being stolen by Turkish pachaS, an extended
area has been irrigated, the use of the baSti-
nado and the "stick" generally has ceased and
the condition Of the fsllaheen has improved and