Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1901-06-07
PROFITS IN WAX.
The Statement Disputed That II 10 y Bat |
Financial Investment.


Financial Investment.
Does war pay pecuniarily? This old
question is again brought to notice BY
the statement of a writer In the Satur.
day Evening Post, who says that al
ways and everywhere war is bad
financial investment, and cites the
South African case to prove his asser-
ton. His statement is not true, and
The example he depends on is especially
unfortunate for his purpose. The mere
TACT that the entire pre- ent worth OF the
two South African so-called republics,
gold mines and all, Is but two hundred
and fifty million dollars, while Great
Britain has already spent six hundred
millions in her efforts to acquire them,
and will doubtless have to spend many
millions more, by no means necessarily
means that the British have engaged II
losing business in this matter.
A very few years hence the real value
Of the African territory secured by the
war will probably be expressed in bill
lions instead of millions Great Britain
Is trying to build up in Africa a great
empire like that which she has in India.
These republics divided her previous
possessions In that part OF the world
in way that hindered the progress and
development she was bent on ensuring
for the benefit of herself and civiliza-
tion in general. In the final event, the
annexation of that land will be worth
to the race many times what the war
cost The truth was well put by re-
cent writer in the Fortnightly Review.
who said: England has no other colo
NAL possessions which promise so much
for her as Africa. She can build there
a great white mans civilization, such
as she could not have in India, Aus
tralia or any other region, and therefore
the value of the Boer conquest is to her
almost inestimable."
So much for that particular case.
With equal certainty it may be said that
almost all wars have been particularly
profitable. History warrants the state
ments; abundant examples with which
we are all familiar go to prove it. The
Franco Prussian war richly repaid both
the nations engaged in it. Germany re-
cured rich piece Of territory and the
full payment of all her war expenses.
France was newly vitalizzed by the ex-
France was newly vitalized by the ex-
prosperity such as she had not enjoyed
since the days Of the first Napoleon.
Spain Is now going through something
of the same experience as the conse-
Juence of her war with the United
States. She has lost territory, to be
sure, but she has been awakened from
4 dream OF foreign dominion that had
enthralled her for generations and has
already begun to develop her Internal
resources with unprecedented vlgor.
Twenty years from now she will doubt
less be far better off than she was be-
fore the war or than she would have
been but for the war. The gain to
Cuba, Porto Rico and the Philippines
is of course obvious: while the accruing
advantages to the United States is too
large to be even guessed at.
Even when neither party to war &C
quires any new territory there is often
and even usually, pecuniary gain to
both in consequence of the conflict.
This was notably true of our Civil War,
the most expensive war of modern
times. No other war of the nineteenth
century cost so much in blood and
treasure, and territorially the result was
to leave. nothing changed. Yet every
body knows that that war stimulated
and began, for both sections of oui
country a period of material progress
and advancement in wealth that was
never equalled by any country on the
globe. Fearful as the struggle was, great
as was the loss for time in blood and
treasure, the Civil War was richly
paying investment. measured in dollars
and cents, for north and south alike.
Indeed, the party to that war that suf-
fered the most and, seemed to be losing
the most was the party that really
gained the most n the final event.
The same would be found true by a
comprehensive review of almost any of
the wars of history and their conse-
uuences. This, of course, Is not saying
that war is so profitable an investment
on general principles that it would be
wise for nations to engage in war when
ever they can find or invent an excuse.
But it does amount to saying that when
4 real necessity for resort to arms arises
no nation need hesitate to accept the
gauntlet because of fear of cost and
losses. War has been one of the great
est agencies-not the best agency 1t Is
true. but very real and effective
agency-fon the uplifting of the human
race and the advancement of civiliza-
ton. It. as well as peace, works for
good. as rule. The Psalmist spoke
not idly when he said: Surely the
wrath of man shall praise thee. "-Provi-
dence Journal.