Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1900-04-27


world" This was no mere expression
of desire for such an alliance or un-
derstanding, but square assumption
that it already existed. Forseeing
that the term "alliance" was too posi-
tive Gn view of the necessity for rati-
tication by the American Senate), Mr..
Chamberlain explained his use of it as
follows: "I used the word alliance, ,
but it matters little whether we hare
an alliance committed to paper or an
understanding which exists in the
minds of the statesmen of the respect.
i've countries"
That is exactly what the American
people, with good reason. suspect has
been arrived at-"an understanding
which exists in the minds of the
statesmen of the respective coun-
tries" that is, in the minds of Presi-
dent Mckinley, Secretary Hay and
their colleagues on this side, and in
the minds of Lord Salisbury, Secretary
Chamberlain and their colleagues on
that side OF the water. Mr.. Chamber
lain's words have never been repudi-
ated by Lord Salisbury, and while his
public utterance of them was criti-
cised by the British press as "indis.
Greet" and ill-advised," their senti.
ment has been endorsed with remark
able unanimity. As for lack OF re-
sponse ON this side, this is Presiden-
tial year. Republican leaders are
necessarily speaking softly on this ten
der subject Of the understanding"
which, according to Mr.. Chamberlain,
"exists in the minds of the statesmen
of the respective countries" More
than one member OF the Mckinley
cabinet, however, is credited by COM
mon report with having privately ex-
pressed sentiments entirely consistent
with Mr.. Chamberlain's famous an
nouncement.
One leading representative at least
OF the Mckinley administration has
publicly echoed Mr.. Chamberlain 8
speech. We refer to Senator Cush-
man X. Davis, chairman OF the Senate
committee on Foreign Affairs-a post
that has always given the utterances
OF its occupant an almost official
character-and who, speaking at St.
Paul, Minn., July 81, 1898, said: ait
was not till very recently that Great
Britain and the United States looked
each other in the face with any sign
OF recognition OF their political rela.
tionship. 1t is we'll for them, for civ.
ilization, for national independence
and for personal freedom that they
have begun to do so." Continuing in
this strain, Senator Davis went on to
speak of the isolation of England
from the other States of Europe" and
the heretofore isolation of the United
States. He then pointed out their
parallel interests and declared that
"the United States must become an
efficient element in the Asiatic situa-
ton, or must abstain from any partic.
ipatiOn in it," Such talk clearly
means cooperative action with Great
Britain in Asia, and hence antagonism
to other powers there, or it has no
meaning. Mr.. Davis himself felt this
to be the case, for he said: at may
be objected that all this is without
precedent So it is, but all great hui
man evolutions must precede prece.
dents in order to create them."
Much palmer and more vigorous
were Senator Davis's words to an in
tervie wer in Paris, who reported him
to the London Mail on December 13,
1898, as saying: "Not only do / IA
vor an understanding with Great
Britain. but I favor a treaty Of triple
alliance, including the United States,
Great Britain and Japan, for the pro-
lection of all their interests north of
the equator. The rest of the world
would have for us a wholesome fear
synonymous with respect" In this
interview, which seems never to have
been questioned, the Republican
chairman of the Senate Foreign AT.
fairs committee distinctly declared for
an alliance, and with view to inspir-
ing "the rest of the world" with fear
an international state of affairs
which would almost inevitably lead to
war.
The outward actions OF the admins
tration, which speak louder than
words, confirm this report. In the
Samoan affair, in the open door" ne
gotiations with China, in the Nicara.
guam treaty episode and in the treat
ment OF the Boer appeal for mediation,
the whole course of the administra-
ton, 90 far as we know it, has been
precisely what it would have been if
the understanding in the minds of
the statesmen Of the respective coun-
tries" spoken by Mr.. Chamberlain had
the practical effect of formal treaty
of alliance.
This is, in truth, the gravest aspect
OF the Mckinley policy of Asiatic ad-
venture. No one can say how far it is
going to lead us into the labyrinth of
old world politics nor what it may
cost us in lives and treasure to get out
of it with honor or to stay in it with
credit. But everyone can see that
someone in authority at Washington