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

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-
cam" which claims that the famine vic
tins are dying in India at the rate of five
hundred an hour. 1t also makes the state
ment that two cents day will support one
life, five dollars will save a man, wife, and
child until the next crop is gathered, and
enc hundred dollars would save small
community. Comparing the cost of reliev-
ing this distress with that OF carrying on
the war, it notes that the cost of one min
utes discharge of a Maxim gun would save
a whole fanny from death, that two rifle
cartridges 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 a large scale, in
directly as well as directly.
This is certainly a vivid illustration of
the eostliness and destructiveness of war in
itself. But as for the argument advanced,
there is something to be said on the other
side. A committee of missionaries to In
dia, in attendance at the missionary con-
ference in New York, gave testimony that
the British Government is doing all that
any government on earth could do to save
the lives of its distressed subjects" and
inclined to take a 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. s125. 900, while eI5O.OOO 900 has
been spent on the Boer war. But to COM
pare the Government expenditure on ac-
count of the war with the subscriptions of
private individuals for famine relief proves
nothing since 1t 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 mischievous,
because misleading. Moreover, Prof
Washburn Hopkins. Of Yale University
makes the positive statement that there
is 10 lack OF grain in India; it is held
by the merchants, who will not give it
to the people. lie also says that the
cause Of most OF the Hindu farmers mis-
fortunes is the improvidence 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 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 TO tack OF 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 1t can to meet this
emergency. In a country like India, the
work of famine relief is not quite as sim
pie as 1t would be in the United States,
nor quite SO quickly finished.
Moreover. there are some reasons, even
from a humanitarian view. for the war in
south Africa. AS everyone knows, the
prestige of Great Britain, and the con-
tlnuance of her empire, depend largely
upon bringing this war to a successful
termination now that 1t IS begun. Should
she lose her place as one OF the great pow
ers, one Of the first colonies to 80 would
be India, which would be likely to fall
into Russian hands and il Is entIrelT Dos