The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-06
The Cost of Mnr.

There is a disposition on the part Of some
American papers to blame the British Gov
| eminent severely for spending so much
money on the war in South Africa, and
comparatively so little in relieving India.
/ The strongest criticism, perhaps, is that
made by the philadelphia North Ameri-
can" which claims that the famine VIC
tins are dying in India at the rate Of FIVE
hundred an hour. Il also makes the state
ment that two cents a day Will support one
life. five dollars will save man, wife, and
child until the next crop is gathered, and
one hundred dollars would save a small
community. Comparing the cost Of reliey-
ing this distress with that Of carrying on
the war. il notes that the cost OF one min
ute's discharge OF a Maxim gun would save
a whole fanny from death, that two rife
cartridges a day will support one life. and
that the cost Of the war for one second
would save ten lives four months. The up
shot Of all this seems TO be that the Brit
ish Government. in devoting money to the
prosecution Of the war in South Africa in
stead Of to the relief Of the famine victims
is committing murder on q large scale in
directly as wei as directly.
This is certainly a vivid illustration of
the costliness and destrucuveness Of war in
itself But as for the argument advanced.
there is something to be said on the other
side. committee Of missionaries to In
Ola, in attendance at the missionary con
ference in New York, gave testimony that
the British Government is doing all that
auy government on earth could do to save
the lives Of its distressed subjects" and
the American missionary is not, as rule.
inclined to take rose-colored view Of the
British civil service in India.
Again. here is a comparison which on
close examination. will be seen to be
hardly fair. 1t is said that England has
sent. in subscriptions to aid the Indian
treasury. e125 600. while $50 OOo. 900 has
been spent on the Boer war. But to com
pare the Government expenditure on &C
count Of the war with the subscriptions OF
private individuals for famine relief proves
nothing. since Il leaves entirely out Of
the question the very large factor which
the Indian treasury should constitute in
such a comparison.
A statement like this is mischieyous.
because misleading. Moreover, Prof
Washburn Hopkins. Of Yale University,
makes the positive statement that there
is no lack OF grain in India; it is held
Dry the merchants. who will not give it
20 the people lie also saws that the
cause Of most Of the Hindu farmers mis-
fortunes is The improyideEce which leads
him TO be continually in debt to the
money lender. The peasant. then. is suf-
fering just now from a corner" in the
grain market and not only one but thou
sands Of such corners. When the native
farmer IS willing TO pay a usurer $50 to
300 per cent interest on money borrowed
for wedding or funeral expenses, for
which he has mortgaged his estate, and |
this too. mot on the sum loaned but on
the sum with a cipher added. which the |
usurer knows how 10 tack on and the |
peasant is too ignorant to discover" It is
hard TO see how he is to be kept from |
suffering the distress Of extreme poverty |
when crops fail. But there is really no |
evidence that the Government OF India is |
not doing all that it can to meet this |
emergency. In country like India, the |
work OF famine relief is not quite as sim |
pie as It would be in the United States, |
nor quite so quickly finished.
Moreover, there are some reasons. even |
from humanitarian view. for the war in |
south Africa As everyone knows, the |
prestige Of Great Britain, and the con-
tinuance Of her empire depend largely |
upon bringing this war to a successful |
termination now that it IS begun. Should |
She lose her place as one Of the great pow
aIs one Of the first colonies to go would
be India. which would be likely to fan
into Russian hands. and it is entirely pos