New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-10-31
TWO or 4 KIND.

1.-TWO Of a trade" the fabuliSt declares, "can
ne'cr agree" Assurcdly he wrote before the age
Of trusts lie wrote, too, as every fabulist has
vritten-evon that famous one who traded the
copyright for a bottle of potash'-part truth.
part error There is u natural rivalry between
two Of n trade beyond all doubt, which leads 10
a degree of disagreement and sometimes even 10
antagoniSm. But there is as certainly COM
munitv of interests which binds them together
and cnforces measure Of harmony Of effort
And these things are as true OF nations Of
men. and they go far i'm the judicious mind tow
ard explaining and accounting for the pcculiari-
tics Of relationship between the two great Eng
sh speaking Powers
For we are two Of kind. Our dispositions.
aims and methods are alike The you he
damned" spirit Of British arrogance has It's close
counterpart in our ancestral readiness TO wal
lop al creation" When the British poet tells us
Take old o. the wings o. the mornIn,
An flop round the earth TIL you're dead;
But you won't get away from the tune that they
To The bloomin' old rag overload.
he merely parallels I'm lyric form the immcmo-
rial boast that the boundaries of the United
States include the Aurora Boroalis on the one
hand and the Day of Judgment on the other. 1t
was Samuel Adams who first said, what Barcrc
and Bonaparte repeated. that England was n
nation of shopkcepcrs; but Adams's own nation
has today developed the commercial and indus
trial spirit 10 an equal pitch. In origin and in
blood. in language and in crecds, in institutions
and in laws in disposition and in manner, there
is commonaliy between the two such rs we
may discern between 10 other nations Of com
parable rank.
Al the present time this general fact is en-
phaslzcd in special application Of most con
vincng character. Mr.. Chamberlain. The Brit
ish Colonial Secretary. in letter 10 our London
correspondent the other day suggested what
had already been mentioned in these columns,
to wit the close parallel between the British
policy in South Africa and our own in respect 10
Cuba. For scycniy-odd years this country pro.
claimed ana maintained substantial hcCcmony
over cuba. That is 10 say, # forbade Spain TO
sell or 10 cede the island to any other Power.
and it forbade all other Powers 10 acquire the
island or to NEEDLE in It's affairs prohibition.
we may add. which was respected by European
nations II did that not because il had any
legal title To the soil Of Cuba, but because it
was essential to our own peace. security and
general welfare that Cnha should not pass under
an ownership that might make II base Of hos
tile operations against us. AZ almost any time
In the last thrcc-quartcrs Of "A century the United
STATES would have resisted, even 10 the extent
Of war. the transfer Of cuba by Spain to any
other European Power and in doing 50 ii would
have been doing right Now In precisely tho
same way British hegomony over the Transvaal
is necessary 10 the peace. security and general
welfare Of the British Empire In South Africa
and Great Britain would similarly have been
justified In resisting, even 10 the extent Of war
any attempt to remove the Iransyaal from that
bcgcmony and TO pat 1t under the control Of
some other and possibly hostile Power. Ia IN
ssfing upon British suzcrainty. hcScmOny, para
mOuntcy, or whatever you may call II, over the
Bocr States Mr. Chamberlain has only been do
ing just what we did for many years in the case
| Of Cuba.
Equally obvious. too. is tho other resemblance
mentioned by Mr. Chamberlain in his letter TO
Mr.. Ford namely. that just rs we interviewed in
Cuba 10 put an end to a state OF affairs that had
| become intocrabe to us because Of Its barbarty