The evening times., 1899-01-24

which. rs every one knows. are extreme
ly low. IL IL also explained that these ma
tives live entirely on grain, and that. by
long custom, they have become enabled7
to do without meat From these facts
two conclusions are deduced; one. that 1t
is British rule which has reduced the Hin
du to this condition and forced him to live
on grain alone; and second. mat If the
American undertakes to annex a similar
population it will also be reduced to
these conditions by a natural process OF
competition. This reasoning seems lit
tie queer, but as il Is a fair example OF
the arguments used by the anti-expansion
party 1t may be worth while to analyze 1t.
In the first place, as anyone acquainted
with the history OF India and the customs
of her people must know. the condition
of the natives is not altogether due TO the
severity of British rule. India has been
conquered. wholly or in part, some six or
seven times, by as many different nations;
and the result is an extraordinary mingling
of races. none of which, except the English,
are very high in the scale OF material civil
ization. Thus the poverty of the Hindu,
or the Mohammedan, or the Pathan, or
the Gond, or the Barmese. or the Parsee,
or the Chinese, ia India is due partly to
the rapacity of native kings. who, for some
centuries systematically taxed the natives
in order to fill their own treasures to re-
pletion. India was once in much the same
condition as France under the aristocracy,
except that owing TO the simpler conditions
of life in a mild climate there was prob
ably not so much actual suffering among
the peasantry. The same climatic condi-
tions prevent the Hindu people from de-
veloping any very high inventive talent.
Why should they contrive machines TO
weave warm clothing. when they do not
suffer from cold? Why should they build
elaborate dwellings, when simpler shelter
is exactly as comfortable? Why should
they erect sausage factories, when their
| religion and their taste alike prevent them
| from eating any sort of flesh? Having few
wants to satisfy, they can afford TO work
| for low wages; and this would be so il
the British had never seen India. The re-
mark about the unfortunate Hindu is
pretty rhetoric. but il is not altogether
supported by the facts. If the savage OF
|
a days work or a boatload OF fish for a
handful of beads price one cent, it does
| not prove that the bead merchant is vile
oppressor.
The second conclusion is that the Ameri-
can will be reduced to living on six OF
seven cents day If he annexes islands
where the rate of wages is no higher than
that. But there are no statistics to prove
that the British workman is selling his la
Dor for seven cents day, or anything like
it; and the British have controlled India
for more than a century. There is no rea
son TO suppose that wages in the United
Kingdom were ever lowered by lndial
competition. There may be- now and then
a lowering of wages as result of com
petition with a large force of unskille'
| labor; but these matters inevitably, il
time. settle themselves. In the decade jus
before the Civil War there was an immens
emigration of Irish peasants to America
They lowered wages for time. Thei
they began TO live in the American fash
ion-which would have been impossible
under the hard conditions from which the
came-and wages rose accordingly. TIL
same thing has happened whenever ther
has been a sudden increase in the numbe
of unskilled laborers. AS soon as the la
borer, or his children, become Americans
they wish to live as the Americans do
and they become consumers as we'll a
producers. If We proposed transplantin
the Philippines to this country. ii Nigh
. be disastrous, but nothing of the kind
likely to happen.